"Fast" is a relative term. A lot of CGA era games will run super fast even on 386/486. That's why Turbo button was implemented.

What older MS-DOS games are you referring to? The DOS era covers from original XT @ 4.77 MHz all the way to late 90s into the Pentium MMX era and beyond.

Usually when people talk about playing older DOS games, it's for games from the late 80s to early 90s that were targeted at 286/386 class PCs. Generally what you want is a PC that will throttle well.

Popular choices for this include Pentium MMX 200 / 233, AMD K6-2+ / III+, or VIA C3 using tools like CPUSPD and SETMUL. There is also the Throttle Blaster project which can be used to fine tune throttling via the STPCLK# pin on the processor.

For sound, an AWE64 is a good choice for SB16 / AWE32 compatibility. However, it lacks genuine OPL2 / OPL3 for FM synth (it does have an emulated version that doesn't sound the same), and isn't a great choice for General MIDI playback. To get proper coverage of audio in the DOS era, you're looking at multiple sound cards and/or sound modules.

For GPU, this can entirely depend on which era of games you're targeting. S3 based cards tend to be popular for their compatibility. nVidia and 3Dfx cards can be a good choice as well.

Programs that use timing should not care.
Programs that count cycles can be slowed down to XT speed with an utility.

Check this list out for gfx card options
https://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/

The most important thing you got covered, a mainboard with one ISA slot to house a soundcard. The rest can be even P4 era and beyond.
Pentium with 1MB graphics card covers 99.9% of DOS games. The rest are SVGA software rendering. Fastest slot 1 CPUs should be able to net good framerate at 800x600 Quake.

Thank you for the swift responces, extremely informative.

I am looking for the late 80's early 90's stuff yes I have the machine in my signiture for later games. I missed out of the MS DOS era of gaming (although i did have access to multiple DOS machines when i was a kid, just no games) so i'd like to explore this era i missed out on.

Those tools look great! I guess technically if i had an ISA slot on my existing machine but it would be fun to build something specific as i have spares to make a complete PC. Regarding the sound card, ISA sound cards here are really expensive and I'm not looking for the best of the best in terms of sound, as long as it's compatible and will actually produce sound i;m fine with it so will my AWE64 be incompatible? or just sound worse?

1997 is the first year with more new games released for Windows than for DOS - 918 vs. 418.
1998 is already down to 188 for DOS, and often it's just extensions/reeditions of earlier games.

So I guess anything past Pentium II brings more trouble than value when it comes to DOS gaming...

Grzyb wrote on 2024-08-13, 22:35:

So I guess anything past Pentium II brings more trouble than value when it comes to DOS gaming...

Not necessarily. Extra performance headroom can enable running 3D games in software modes at high resolutions and fast frame rates.

It also depends on how well the system can be throttled.

I'm running a Pentium 4 @ 3.4 GHz and it's great for DOS gaming. With cache disabled, it turns into a mid-range 486.

Too fast would probably mean LucasArts SCUMM games locking-up, Sierra SCI1 games not initializing sound, Turbo Pascal games throwing runtime errors and Windows 95 not booting - so firmly in that 5th gen area (Pentium/6x86/K5) is the safest fastest for DOS compatibility.

WarhammerDarkOmen wrote on 2024-08-13, 22:26:

I am looking for the late 80's early 90's stuff yes I have the machine in my signiture for later games. I missed out of the MS DOS era of gaming (although i did have access to multiple DOS machines when i was a kid, just no games) so i'd like to explore this era i missed out on.

There are a number of options for covering this era.

The most authentic would be a 386 or 486 system. My favorite build for this era is my 486 DX-33. Between cache disabling and the turbo button, it gives me a few performance options to cover 286, 386, and 486 levels of performance.

That said, a Pentium MMX system is probably more readily available, easier to configure and will offer a wider range of performance tuning. Phil's Computer Lab has a video on such a system and demonstrating the various levels of throttling available down to 386 levels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcBmEjXg2ME

Regarding the sound card, ISA sound cards here are really expensive and I'm not looking for the best of the best in terms of sound, as long as it's compatible and will actually produce sound i;m fine with it so will my AWE64 be incompatible? or just sound worse?

An AWE64 will work and if you don't have any expectations about how games of that era should sound, you might not notice whether music playback sounds 'authentic' or not.

For games in that era, I'd recommend something like a Yamaha Audician type card. You will get genuine OPL3 so FM synthesis (e.g. Adlib) will sound more like how it's supposed to sound. Plus you could add in a wavetable like a Dreamblaster for General MIDI playback, another audio staple of the era.

It all depends on how what you're looking for in terms of music playback though.

Points valid above, tho we weren't talking about Windows. Things change if you include Windows.

On the DOS side, I have a 100MHz Pentium with 8/16 MB of RAM, a Hercules Stingray Pro graphics and Orpheus 2LT with X16GS module.

That CPU handles everything bar mentioned late SVGA 3D games. Low RAM selection is due to a lot of RAM being problematic for some DOS applications and games, and 8 MB being enough for mostly everything but also there are a few 16MB requiring programs, then again there are programs that have problems above 8MB. So these two values are the sweet spot. The graphics card I've chosen by list above and availability, its strengths are VGA compatibility and clear output. The soundcard I've chosen for its crystal clear output, SB and OPL compatibility and extra features.

When I want to run those SVGA 3D games I just pull out a Core system or a P4.

I would recommend you get a Slot 1, Pentium 100+, some RAM, and a passive CF-IDE converter. Moving data around, flexibility, is important. Buy card like Stingray Pro, S3, Cirrus Logic models, consult the list above and ebay. These cards are cheap. With AWE64 you have, it's a start. Later you can upgrade with better or more sound cards.

The problem with covering dos era sound fully on a single computer is the number of ISA slots available vs CPU. You can max out a 486 board with soundcards, but 486 won't run smoothly all games. If there is a Slot 1 board with a ton of ISA slots, it's quite rare.

I find even my P3 plays most my dos games. it really depends on your library.

have a look at this list and see how many games you have that are affected.
https://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/List_of_ … sensitive_games

Look at the already mentioned GPU compatibility list for potential issues
https://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/

Thank you all for the feedback it's been extremely informative. I'm happy to report i found a full system for a fair price (unheard of in this country in recent times)

Pentium 100
96MB RAM (going to reduce this to 16MB or under)
800MB HDD (going to use a IDE to CF card adaptor with a spare 8GB CF card instead of this for ease of transfering files)
FDD
CD ROM
AT style motherboard
Some sort of VGA card
Best part of all, a TURBO button! 😁

I'm hoping it has ISA slots as there was no info on that but given the age and type of board i would assume it would have at least one right? I hope so!

Should suit all my needs. To answer the question above I am actually new to MS DOS gaming (apart from DOOM, Quake and Duke Nukem 3D which i had as a kid) so this machine will be used to explore all those games I missed out on. Hopefully this configuration with a AWE64 will be compatible with most games and i can experience the joys of DOS gaming.

WarhammerDarkOmen wrote on 2024-08-14, 15:09:

Best part of all, a TURBO button! 😁

Unlikely to work - Socket 5/7 boards don't have the pins to connect Turbo button.

I'm hoping it has ISA slots as there was no info on that but given the age and type of board i would assume it would have at least one right? I hope so!

I expect three or four.

Grzyb wrote on 2024-08-14, 16:52:

WarhammerDarkOmen wrote on 2024-08-14, 15:09:

Best part of all, a TURBO button! 😁

Unlikely to work - Socket 5/7 boards don't have the pins to connect Turbo button.

Some of them do. I have a Pentium 133 system with a Gigabyte GA-586ATE/P motherboard (Socket 7) that has a functioning turbo button header.

Most do not though.

WarhammerDarkOmen wrote on 2024-08-14, 15:09:

Thank you all for the feedback it's been extremely informative. I'm happy to report i found a full system for a fair price (unhe […]
Show full quote

Thank you all for the feedback it's been extremely informative. I'm happy to report i found a full system for a fair price (unheard of in this country in recent times)

Pentium 100
96MB RAM (going to reduce this to 16MB or under)
800MB HDD (going to use a IDE to CF card adaptor with a spare 8GB CF card instead of this for ease of transfering files)
FDD
CD ROM
AT style motherboard
Some sort of VGA card
Best part of all, a TURBO button! 😁

I'm hoping it has ISA slots as there was no info on that but given the age and type of board i would assume it would have at least one right? I hope so!

Most motherboards of that era should have at least 3 or possibly 4 ISA slots. So you should be good to go. 😀

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-08-14, 16:55:

Some of them do. I have a Pentium 133 system with a Gigabyte motherboard (Socket 7) that has a functioning turbo button header.

Most do not though.

Same here. I have one with turbo sw/led connectors. The manual says do not switch turbo when the computer is on, so I did 😅 In most cases it hangs, but in a few it works (e.g. during SysInfo it works). The switch effectively lowers the FSB clock, and the P90 becomes a P75 and the POST screen says I now have a P75. Really nice!

One of the indicators of the turbo support is whether clock chip PLL has a low frequency for it. Also some chipset support helps, then it can do the cache flush and idle cycle smooth in and out for the changeover on the fly. Difference between changing gears with the clutch and without.

Depends on the (DOS) games you want to play. Not that many games are speed sensitive. There are also games and applications where standard DOS hardware quickly reaches its limits. Everyone has their own games, for mine a compromise of a maximum of 500 MHz (depending on the CPU) turned out to be the most suitable for the DOS/Win 98SE PCs. Otherwise, if the focus is more on DOS gaming, and with fewer options for Windows, up to 233 MHz. If you prefer Windows 98 (SE), I would say up to 1000 MHz. I've just tested it, even at 2 GHz a surprising number of old (DOS) games still work, but less than at 900 MHz, for example.
A few games can be patched and then run on faster hardware. There are also other options for adjusting the speed depending on the board or CPU (Throttle Blaster is not for me). There are a few tools, or if you have a K6-2+ or K6-III+ CPU, for example, you can adjust the frequency or switch off the cache via software. I built a turbo button for a K6-III CPU. This manipulates a jumper. 250 MHz instead of 450 MHz, helps with 2-3 games. Unpopular opinion: If something doesn't work at all, you can always use an emulator. The good old DOSBox or something more modern.

But it's great and annoying at the same time that a DOS game from 1982 still works on an XP2400+, while another that is more than 10 years younger doesn't work at 450 MHz. DOS gaming is awesome 😉

One "well programmed" game I'm thinking of is Lost Vikings, runs smooth on a 386sx25... still runs on 1000Mhz PIII/Athlon. On faster proc I've mainly had it emulated for the environment rather than the hardware, probably goes higher. Another game I like, a text adventure so no gfx to mess up, that runs on an XT, played it on an XT back in the day, runs in a windows console on Win7 on a 2.4Ghz CPU... amazing. Then others, like mentioned above, they'll mess up on 486. I think this is where this site got momentum, stuff you couldn't even run right on a "free on the curb" 486 or pentium machine at the time. Actually might be good doing a timewarp into the archives for the early days to see how to get some stuff to run on your "overpowered" vintage PII which was still a common machine at this site's inception.

WarhammerDarkOmen wrote on 2024-08-14, 15:09:

96MB RAM (going to reduce this to 16MB or under)

That amount seems fine for Windows 98SE, it has some extra headroom in comparison to the usual 64MB configuration.
If the PC is supposed to run MS-DOS 6.x, then 64MB might be a good upper limit.
That's what the old himem.sys and the normal AT-BIOS API functions do support without trickery.

The extra memory expansion might be nice for running a large HDD cache (Helix Multimedia Cloaking etc) and DOS4GW games (Descent etc).
The latter normally used lots of virtual memory to compensate for lack of memory of back in the day.
If lots of physical memory is available, it's not required to swap to disk so often.

Edit: Please don't get me wrong. 16 MB was a fine memory expansion back in the 486 days.
It was considered "full" memory expansion in the days DOS 5/6 and Windows 3 were current.

My father himself who worked in IT did convince his customers/clients himself to let him install that much RAM.
His reason was that this avoids trouble on the long run, so that users have a reserve and things "simply work".

Back in the day software was becoming slower more quickly than hardware was getting more powerful.
Especially hard disk space and memory were running out quickly-

Edit: I forgot to mention. I was running Windows 98SE back in the day on a 24MB Pentium.
The system was usable, but not silk smooth. 32, 64 or 96 MB would have been better.
Gratefully, I had an 1,5 GB SCSI HDD in that PC (I think).