VOGONS


First post, by JayAlien

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hi All,
I have an 'early' Win98 build with the following specs:

Win98SE
SBLive!/AWE64
Voodoo 3 3000
256mb ram
AMD K6-II 400Mhz
ASUS P5S-VM

I had initially built this with a Pentium 233 MMX to roughly equate to a PC I had around this time period (only with way more RAM, I had 32-64Mb back in the day), but after finding it slow, I upgraded to the AMD K6-II 400. I still find this PC very slow (I build a few old PCs, this is not a case of 'oh this is slow compared to my modern Win10 PC).
For example, I recall playing a lot of UT99 on my original PC with a Voodoo 3 and K6-II 333, whereas on my modern recreation UT99 is unplayable, very sluggish on lowest settings @640x480.
I have a PCI Geforce 6200 256 I could use, but it's not really in keeping with the time-period.
Any ideas what's going on here? A run of 3dMark99 @800x600 gets me 1548 3DMarks, and 3624 CPU 3DMarks.
Thanks,
J

Edit: Added motherboard to spec list

Last edited by JayAlien on 2020-10-14, 20:50. Edited 1 time in total.

DOS: P75nocache, SB16, Adlib, 8MB
DOS: P100, S3 Virge DX, AWE64, MT-32, SC-88, 32MB
98SE: P233MMX, ATi Rage128Pro, AWE64, 128MB
98SE: Athlon3200+, Radeon850pro, Audigy2ZS, 512MB
2K: P4 3.4G, 6800XT, Audigy2, 1GB
XP: i7-975, GTX570, Auzen X-Fi, X58, 3GB

Reply 2 of 8, by melbar

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Which mainboard you are running? With VIA (MVP3 or MVP4) or Ali ALADDiN V (which revision ?)

With 256 MB ram, you don't have write-back cache strategy (except you use K6-2+ or K6-3(+) with on cpu L2 cache). see here: http://www.amd-k6.com/cacheable-ram-on-socket-7-platforms/

I have with my K6-2 500Mhz, VIA MVP3 board, with a Riva 128 PCI and a Riva TNT2 AGP, 64MB PC-100 ram (with write-back strategy) , 3Dmark 99 (default setting 800x600) :

with Riva128: 922 (3Dmarks) , 5878 (CPU 3dmarks)
with RivaTNT2: 2588 (3Dmarks) , 5971 (CPU 3dmarks)

For example, look also this thread:
Voodoo 3 3000 AGP under performing?

Reply 3 of 8, by JayAlien

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

The motherboard is an ASUS P5S-VM, however it's one of the HP ones, I don't think I have all the BIOS options available to me. It looks like the chipset is SiS530/5595.

What prompted my initial post, was I'd just installed System Shock 2, which looking at the recommended specs should be easily playable on this PC.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/system-shock-2/techinfo

at lowest settings, I'd estimate I'm seeing about 10fps @ 640x480. Looking that the other threads you posted, my 3dMarks seem pretty standard for this build, but most gaming seems very sluggish.
Thanks,
J

DOS: P75nocache, SB16, Adlib, 8MB
DOS: P100, S3 Virge DX, AWE64, MT-32, SC-88, 32MB
98SE: P233MMX, ATi Rage128Pro, AWE64, 128MB
98SE: Athlon3200+, Radeon850pro, Audigy2ZS, 512MB
2K: P4 3.4G, 6800XT, Audigy2, 1GB
XP: i7-975, GTX570, Auzen X-Fi, X58, 3GB

Reply 4 of 8, by melbar

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Ok,
according to wiki the SiS 530 can cache up to 256MB ram so that is not the problem...

The member Skyscraper has benched this chipset against the other availables:
"Super 7" SiS 530 chipset.

Here i have a chart of a review to system shock 2.
With a P2 -333 it should be fine...

system shock2.JPG
Filename
system shock2.JPG
File size
107.38 KiB
Views
173 views
File license
CC-BY-4.0

Reply 5 of 8, by JayAlien

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

That chart is quite telling. Perhaps I'm expecting too much, it might be time to replace with a Pentium 2 or Pentium 3 system, maybe P3 @ 1000Mhz.

DOS: P75nocache, SB16, Adlib, 8MB
DOS: P100, S3 Virge DX, AWE64, MT-32, SC-88, 32MB
98SE: P233MMX, ATi Rage128Pro, AWE64, 128MB
98SE: Athlon3200+, Radeon850pro, Audigy2ZS, 512MB
2K: P4 3.4G, 6800XT, Audigy2, 1GB
XP: i7-975, GTX570, Auzen X-Fi, X58, 3GB

Reply 6 of 8, by melbar

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Have installed shortly system shock 2 to these my example PC's:

  • K6-2 500, clocked @400MHz, VIA MVP3 chipset (512kb L2 cache), 64Mb RAM PC100, Riva TNT2 32Mb SD-RAM.

Example Screenshots.

IMG_K6-2_400_140855.jpg
Filename
IMG_K6-2_400_140855.jpg
File size
84.1 KiB
Views
123 views
File license
CC-BY-4.0
IMG_K6-2_400_140910.jpg
Filename
IMG_K6-2_400_140910.jpg
File size
88.64 KiB
Views
123 views
File license
CC-BY-4.0
IMG_K6-2_400_141022.jpg
Filename
IMG_K6-2_400_141022.jpg
File size
91.15 KiB
Views
123 views
File license
CC-BY-4.0
Last edited by melbar on 2020-10-15, 13:16. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 7 of 8, by melbar

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
  • Athlon 1200, clocked @550MHz, VIA KT133 chipset, 512Mb RAM PC133 (clocked: 100MHz), Riva TNT2 Pro 32Mb SD-RAM.

Example Screenshots.

IMG_K7_550_144652.jpg
Filename
IMG_K7_550_144652.jpg
File size
80.14 KiB
Views
121 views
File license
CC-BY-4.0
IMG_K7_550_144808.jpg
Filename
IMG_K7_550_144808.jpg
File size
93.62 KiB
Views
121 views
File license
CC-BY-4.0
IMG_K7_550_145050.jpg
Filename
IMG_K7_550_145050.jpg
File size
91.66 KiB
Views
121 views
File license
CC-BY-4.0

Reply 8 of 8, by JayAlien

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Melbar, thanks a lot for spending this time on this, this is so helpful. It looks like moving from a 400Mhz CPU to 550Mhz is netting almost twice the framerate. It's easy to forget the pace of change between about 1995 and 2005 in terms of processor speed and what they could achieve. A new CPU one year may have struggled on a game released even 12 or 18 months later. Your post has reminded me that I'm trying to play a 1999 released game (possible a quite demanding one at the time), on a CPU from early 1998. This seems insignificant in retrospect, but a CPU from 2000 or 2001 will likely run this game far more smoothly.
Again, thanks for the time and effort you put into this,
J

DOS: P75nocache, SB16, Adlib, 8MB
DOS: P100, S3 Virge DX, AWE64, MT-32, SC-88, 32MB
98SE: P233MMX, ATi Rage128Pro, AWE64, 128MB
98SE: Athlon3200+, Radeon850pro, Audigy2ZS, 512MB
2K: P4 3.4G, 6800XT, Audigy2, 1GB
XP: i7-975, GTX570, Auzen X-Fi, X58, 3GB