Because VIA gives you options and Intel takes them away.

For mainstream Win 98 builds with a P2 or P3, the 440bx is pretty hard to beat. But then Intel got greedy and made some annoying restrictions. The i815 only makes sense if you want a Tualatin Win 98 rig and to run 133mhz FSB with in-spec AGP. But then you lose ISA, so you might as well skip the P3 and move to P4 or Athlon XP, or even Athlon 64. I would argue the i815 has a very narrow niche of applications.

Want to push Tualatin to the max and see how it handles Win XP games? You're gonna need a VIA board with at least 1GB RAM.

Want to maintain good DOS compatibility with that Tualatin? You'll also need a VIA board with ISA.

Want to have it all and use a good Intel chipset? Get the modded Tualeron on ebay and put it on a 440bx board.

Tualerons and 440bx too expensive these days? Get a cheap Coppermine and a VIA Apollo Pro 133A board with an ISA slot. Sure, it's not as fast clock for clock, but you get 133mhz fsb with the right AGP divider, and ISA slot. It might also be less compatible with some primitive early AGP cards, but a Geforce or Radeon works just fine. You might not get AGP 4x stable, but the 440bx doesn't even have that option.

If you're building a P3 rig today, I'd say there are even less reasons to use the i815 than before.

pixel_workbench wrote on 2022-09-01, 05:40:

Because VIA gives you options and Intel takes them away. […]
Show full quote

Because VIA gives you options and Intel takes them away.

For mainstream Win 98 builds with a P2 or P3, the 440bx is pretty hard to beat. But then Intel got greedy and made some annoying restrictions. The i815 only makes sense if you want a Tualatin Win 98 rig and to run 133mhz FSB with in-spec AGP. But then you lose ISA, so you might as well skip the P3 and move to P4 or Athlon XP, or even Athlon 64. I would argue the i815 has a very narrow niche of applications.

Want to push Tualatin to the max and see how it handles Win XP games? You're gonna need a VIA board with at least 1GB RAM.

Want to maintain good DOS compatibility with that Tualatin? You'll also need a VIA board with ISA.

Want to have it all and use a good Intel chipset? Get the modded Tualeron on ebay and put it on a 440bx board.

Tualerons and 440bx too expensive these days? Get a cheap Coppermine and a VIA Apollo Pro 133A board with an ISA slot. Sure, it's not as fast clock for clock, but you get 133mhz fsb with the right AGP divider, and ISA slot. It might also be less compatible with some primitive early AGP cards, but a Geforce or Radeon works just fine. You might not get AGP 4x stable, but the 440bx doesn't even have that option.

If you're building a P3 rig today, I'd say there are even less reasons to use the i815 than before.

Great answer!

VIA is for people who like to tinker, problem solvers looking for cause of that random crash or low performance while 440BX/815e user enjoys his vintage games 😀

dondiego wrote on 2022-08-31, 10:02:

VIA has better legacy audio compatibility. The intel chipset doesn't pupport DDMA and you won't get sound in real dos mode with most pci sound cards, some work but with worse compatibility. And of course no isa. With a 133 mhz bus cpu you can get half the speed at 66 mhz bus and it's not too bad for dos, you can further slow it down with other tools. Also some slowdown tools work better on via. Of course most dos games run on windows and those machines are too fast for old dos games anyway.

My Solo-1 works perfectly in DOS on the 440BX using TDMA

(I don't actually know what DDMA or TDMA are)

rasz_pl wrote on 2022-09-01, 16:35:

VIA is for people who like to tinker, problem solvers looking for cause of that random crash or low performance while 440BX/815e user enjoys his vintage games 😀

I haven't tested things extensively, but I long shared that view until I acquainted myself with VIA's later offerings...

So I think anything later than VT8633 (as @Standard Def Steve articulated) for Intel, or VT8363 for AMD, with their respective southbridges, are quite decent...

VIA IDE compatibility and stability with their southbridges is not the same as their PCI IDE controllers (VT6410, for example). I've found them to be mostly on par compatibility-wise, if not a tad slower than their Intel ICH counterparts. Why VIA did not use the same logic in their PCI controller ICs is beyond me.

All this said, I have to concur with the previous sentiment that the BX platform is not very good at all for retro builds. You don't have that good a range of options to slow it down for older games.

I think the king of retro builds are the AMD Socket A with ISA, or P4 with ISA or SB-Link.

You do not require a mobile chip for Socket A, all you need to do is bridge one or two of the L5 bridges for SETMUL to work in DOS and you're then able to reduce clock speeds to 300Mhz (pretty versatile platform -- 2ghz all the way down to 300mhz), and then you throttle further with ACPI Clock Modulation in CpuSpd (note: contrary to what's posted there, ACPI throttling works even when ACPI is disabled in the BIOS). With P4, you have ODCM and ACPI clock modulation, but no multiplier control.

mockingbird wrote on 2022-09-01, 18:22:

All this said, I have to concur with the previous sentiment that the BX platform is not very good at all for retro builds. You don't have that good a range of options to slow it down for older games.

VIA C3 Ezra-T --> literally ANY speed between a very slow 386SX and a Pentium 3 Katmai 600 MHz is achievable (especially with motherboards that support FSB speeds between 50 and 133 MHz). I have yet to find a more flexible, compatible and stable platform than this.

mockingbird wrote on 2022-09-01, 18:22:

I think the king of retro builds are the AMD Socket A with ISA, or P4 with ISA or SB-Link.

Agree with AMD Socket A, I also think that an Athlon XP Thoroughbred on a good VIA KT600 motherboard is not only very fast and stable, but also amazingly flexible.
Don't really agree that the P4 is a good option (not even with ISA or SB Link), since it lacks the flexibility.

However, I still think that people who don't want any compromises, who simply want their DOS/Win98 retro build to just work with virtually any game released between 1981 - 1999/2000, who may also want to use multiple ISA sound cards, they should just go with a 440BX/VIA C3 Ezra-T build: the stability, speed and compatibility of the 440BX chipset combined with a speed flexibility much greater than what a Super Socket 7 can ever offer. What's not to like? 😀

+1 for socket A Via being awesome. I have a mobile chip on a KT133a that covers from 300 to 1500mhz. Disabling cache also goes a long way for DOS compatibility.

I'm not a sound card nut, so I just use an ES Audiodrive with the single isa slot.

But how do you get the 300 MHz speed? The minimum bus speed is 100 MHz and the minimum multiplier is 5 AFAIK.

Use SETMUL utility as mockingbird mentioned.

bloodem wrote on 2022-09-01, 19:17:

Don't really agree that the P4 is a good option (not even with ISA or SB Link), since it lacks the flexibility.

In what sense?

P4 with SB-Link - This is bulletproof. Pair it with a YMF724 and you're set (no wavetable header though on it, but hook it up through the game port). The only way I can qualitatively measure the slowdown flexibility between this and a Socket A is to benchmark each combination (ACPI Clock Modulation + ODCM for the P4 vs. ACM + Setmul for the socket A). Perhaps in the future. I'm also acquiring parts to do MUNT through the serial port to round this platform out (MT32 capability using a Raspberry Pi 3 and a MIDI Hat).

P4 with ISA - I agree, it's not always implemented properly and sometimes doesn't work well.

I also think that an Athlon XP Thoroughbred on a good VIA KT600 motherboard is not only very fast and stable, but also amazingly flexible.

I have to disagree with the KT600 being a good choice... If KT600 motherboards existed with ISA or SB-Link, then perhaps. But I have a fair degree of certainty that they don't. If you don't have ISA or SB-Link, then you're better off building a seperate 486 computer, there will be incompatibilities with the sound, no matter how good in DOS what you use is.

ptr1ck wrote on 2022-09-01, 20:15:

+1 for socket A Via being awesome. I have a mobile chip on a KT133a that covers from 300 to 1500mhz. Disabling cache also goes a long way for DOS compatibility.

I'm not a sound card nut, so I just use an ES Audiodrive with the single isa slot.

On KT7A you can also set FSB on the fly to 90MHz so the lowest achievable speed is 270MHz.
VIAFSB - DOS FSB utility for VIA chipsets

mockingbird wrote on 2022-09-01, 21:32:

In what sense?

P4 with SB-Link - This is bulletproof. Pair it with a YMF724 and you're set (no wavetable header though on it, but hook it up through the game port). The only way I can qualitatively measure the slowdown flexibility between this and a Socket A is to benchmark each combination (ACPI Clock Modulation + ODCM for the P4 vs. ACM + Setmul for the socket A). Perhaps in the future. I'm also acquiring parts to do MUNT through the serial port to round this platform out (MT32 capability using a Raspberry Pi 3 and a MIDI Hat).

My experiments with slowing down Pentium 4s have always resulted in failure. ACPI throttle is not an option for me on Intel chipsets, because it creates issues/stutters with MANY games.

mockingbird wrote on 2022-09-01, 21:32:

I have to disagree with the KT600 being a good choice... If KT600 motherboards existed with ISA or SB-Link, then perhaps. But I have a fair degree of certainty that they don't. If you don't have ISA or SB-Link, then you're better off building a seperate 486 computer, there will be incompatibilities with the sound, no matter how good in DOS what you use is.

Athlon XP Thoroughbreds on KT600 boards have an unlocked multiplier and they are not as sensitive to disabling caches, which means that you can effectively achieve 386, 486, Pentium and Pentium 2 speeds. And Throttle works infinitely better with VIA chipsets (it's actually perfectly usable up to steps 9 or 10). Pair it with a Yamaha YMF724, and 95%+ of all DOS games work perfectly (yes, you do need to rely on the DSDMA TSR, which requires an expanded memory manager and this will break compatibility with some games like Ultima 7, but most games will still work just fine and they will sound great).

I disagree that a separate 486 computer is a better choice. I have multiple 486 computers and while they are fun to build and to tinker with... when it comes to actually playing games I would much rather go for stable and versatile platforms like Pentium MMX/430TX, VIA Ezra-T/440BX, Athlon XP/KT600/YMF7x4 builds. Of course, the latter won't be the ideal platform for ultra-enthusiasts, but for most people it will certainly get the job done. Out of all the games that I play/test, only two fail to work on the Athlon XP builds: Ultima 7 (Expanded memory manager not supported) and Jazz Jackrabbit (issues with the DSDMA TSR). All other games (30+) work perfectly fine.

The consensus at the time was that the 440BX and later 815E(P) chipsets had better memory throughput and compatibility, which was to be fair correct at the time. However, the VIA 4-in-1 drivers came a LONG way since their inceptions and with mature drivers the VIA chipsets leave little to be desired in my experience. Moreover, they bring things like Tualatin Support + ISA which is basically impossible in Intel land. Hence, I love me some VIA, but you will see that most cookie cutter builds (including my own period correct build for 199-2001) go with 440BX/815E(P) instead.

bloodem wrote on 2022-09-02, 05:21:

My experiments with slowing down Pentium 4s have always resulted in failure. ACPI throttle is not an option for me on Intel chipsets, because it creates issues/stutters with MANY games.

Can you give me an example of a game please? I'm new to this and really just finished setting up my system proper and would like to test this... If I get the stutters, I will switch it to an Athlon XP platform (KT133A).

So far, all I've tried was Monkey Island (vanilla, original version), and without ACM and ODCM, it crashes with an error when trying to start (run-time error R6003 - integer divide by 0), but works fine with ODCM set to 1 (which takes me down to a Pentium MMX IIRC) and ACM at 3 or so 2 (cpuspd.exe o1 t2).

Thanks

mockingbird wrote on 2022-09-02, 12:35:

Can you give me an example of a game please? I'm new to this and really just finished setting up my system proper and would like to test this... If I get the stutters, I will switch it to an Athlon XP platform (KT133A).

Many... I would say that at least 50% of DOS games. Off the top of my head: Titus the Fox, Prehistorik, Lion King, Aladdin, Jazz Jackrabbit and others.

mockingbird wrote on 2022-09-02, 12:35:

So far, all I've tried was Monkey Island (vanilla, original version), and without ACM and ODCM, it crashes with an error when trying to start (run-time error R6003 - integer divide by 0), but works fine with ODCM set to 1 (which takes me down to a Pentium MMX IIRC) and ACM at 3 or so 2 (cpuspd.exe o8 t2).

Indeed, Monkey Island is one of the games that are not affected and work fine with ACPI throttling on Intel systems.
I've never actually tried CpuSpd, but if it relies on ACPI throttling, I don't imagine it will be any different than with other similar tools.

bloodem wrote on 2022-09-02, 13:06:

Many... I would say that at least 50% of DOS games. Off the top of my head: Titus the Fox, Prehistorik, Lion King, Aladdin, Jazz Jackrabbit and others.

Thanks. I'll give those a try and report back. Just tried Duke Nukem 2. That worked fine but was slow on the o1 t2 setting (between a 486 DX2/50 and a 5x86 133) so I tried o1 t6 (P133'ish) and that worked fine... I agree it should have worked on the 486 setting as well, so that was indeed odd.

bloodem wrote on 2022-09-02, 05:21:

I disagree that a separate 486 computer is a better choice. I have multiple 486 computers and while they are fun to build and to tinker with... when it comes to actually playing games I would much rather go for stable and versatile platforms like Pentium MMX/430TX, VIA Ezra-T/440BX, Athlon XP/KT600/YMF7x4 builds. Of course, the latter won't be the ideal platform for ultra-enthusiasts, but for most people it will certainly get the job done. Out of all the games that I play/test, only two fail to work on the Athlon XP builds: Ultima 7 (Expanded memory manager not supported) and Jazz Jackrabbit (issues with the DSDMA TSR). All other games (30+) work perfectly fine.

Sometimes you just need the raw hardware... Rare, I know, but it happens... For example, I run my 486 with an SD card and several 2GB FAT16 partitions in lieu of FAT32.... As for stability and versatility, I think the Cyrix 5x86 is both, as it allows multiplier changes, and while more technically involved than newer platforms, the 486 is certainly stable with the right amount of knowledge... It also has a certain charm to it from before the days with complex POST environments and power supply schemas. It boots, it counts the RAM, then you're in DOS... No frills or chicanery.

Now, on to P4. I tested the games you mentioned, they all passed with flying colors. Here are the results:

Aladdin - Used cpuspd o1 t4. Also used EATXMS to reduce XMS to 16MB (necessary). Mind you, I have 3GB of PC133 ECC SDRAM in this system, so I also used RLOEW's limitmem.sys to set it to 256MB, but limitmem won't go below 64mb.
Lion King - same as Aladdin

Titus & Prehistorik - cpuspd o1 t4, but no fiddling with RAM necessary

Jazz - cpuspd o1 (Only ODCM but no ACM). With this setting, speedsys shows the CPU as somewhere between a Pentium 200 and a Pentium II 233.

So given all this, I have to stand by my statement that P4 with SB-Link is quite good, perhaps even better than VIA and 462.

Can you do a short video recording of Titus the Fox at level 4 ACPI throttling? It's really hard for me to imagine that these games "passed with flying colors", when I've been testing them for so many years on newer platforms with 0 success on non-VIA chipsets.
Granted, I've never used CpuSpd, however I don't see how the outcome can be different when it basically does the same thing as Throttle.

bloodem wrote on 2022-09-02, 18:56:

Can you do a short video recording of Titus the Fox at level 4 ACPI throttling?

Check your PM sir. One correction, it is o1 t6 for Titus... t4 worked but was too slow.

mockingbird wrote on 2022-09-02, 20:19:

Check your PM sir. One correction, it is o1 t6 for Titus... t4 worked but was too slow.

Thank you very much for the video. 😀
As suspected, the game does not run well at all (that is NOT how it's supposed to run - it's running in slow motion). If you will play further, you will notice there are sections (with multiple moving entities on the screen) where it will even stutter/flicker.

Also, not sure if you have the speakers turned on, but I don't hear any music. And this is actually the main/only issue that Titus the Fox has: sound related speed sensitivity - it needs a very specific CPU speed (between 486SX-20 and 486DX-33) for it to properly initialize the FM music and also run well. Otherwise, the game is not speed sensitive per se, you can play it even with the P4 running at max speed and it will run very well (but without sound).
I did notice that ACPI throttling (especially on late VIA chipsets) can sometimes mitigate this problem and the sound will be properly initialized even with much higher CPU speeds. However this does not work with any Intel chipset I've tried, because it quickly introduces the aforementioned slowdown/stutter.

Under normal circumstances, if the CPU is a bit faster than a 486DX-33, FM synth might be initialized, but music will not sound right because there will be missing sound samples. And since we were talking earlier about real 486 PCs, this is actually an issue even if you have one of those - with a 486DX2-66, sound will either be missing entirely or it will sound strange; if you depress the Turbo button, sound will play, but on many motherboards the game will again run too slow/suffer from occasional stuttering (depending on what the motherboard actually does in the background to achieve the non-Turbo speed).