very nice build!
I'd go with a SB16 though on a p1 machine, maybe you can add a GUS or something for 44khz goodness 😁

Very cool!

While I also like to use MS-DOS 6.22, in a machine like that, MS-DOS 7.1 (MS-DOS mode) works perfectly fine too 😀

I really like your storage options and the buttons for changing the multiplier. Very nifty...

Oh a P200mmx can handle a Voodoo2? I didn't realize that! I may have to keep an eye out.

King_Corduroy wrote:

Oh a P200mmx can handle a Voodoo2? I didn't realize that! I may have to keep an eye out.

Yup, it can. I used to have a Voodoo 2 in my P166MMX and worked much better than I expected.

keropi wrote:

very nice build!
I'd go with a SB16 though on a p1 machine, maybe you can add a GUS or something for 44khz goodness 😁

thanks! In the '90s I used a CT1750 SB16 but I ended up selling it last year and kept only the CT1600. I agree that an SB16 is more "period correct" and probably sounds a bit better for digitized stuff but I appreciate the ease of use of the SB Pro2 (no TSRs). Never owned a GUS though, I know they're sought-after but I don't know anything about them...

philscomputerlab wrote:

Very cool!

While I also like to use MS-DOS 6.22, in a machine like that, MS-DOS 7.1 (MS-DOS mode) works perfectly fine too 😀

I really like your storage options and the buttons for changing the multiplier. Very nifty...

Thanks. Actually I ended up choosing this case after seeing one of your builds here. I'm sure DOS 7.1 would probably work fine too but I like the ease of use of the CF card and I don't think it would play nice with a Win98 install.

King_Corduroy wrote:

Oh a P200mmx can handle a Voodoo2? I didn't realize that! I may have to keep an eye out.

I always thought you really needed a Pentium II to use a Voodoo 2, and that's the setup I had in the late '90s with a 440BX board. However I liked the idea of owning only one retro rig, and I found my 440BX system not versatile enough. My PII-333 was multiplier locked, so it didn't go low enough for DOS, and for some reason the SCC-1 refused to work in this system. Also I didn't care enough for the Windows 98 era games... so I ended up sticking the Voodoo 2 card in the Socket7 system to create this hybrid build, and it works fine with the few Glide games I've tried (POD, Screamer 2 and Rally, Descent 2)

MMaximus wrote:

[thanks! In the '90s I used a CT1750 SB16 but I ended up selling it last year and kept only the CT1600. I agree that an SB16 is more "period correct" and probably sounds a bit better for digitized stuff but I appreciate the ease of use of the SB Pro2 (no TSRs). Never owned a GUS though, I know they're sought-after but I don't know anything about them...

Why do you need a TSR for SB16? You need a TSR for AWE32/64 for games that support MIDI but not native AWE, and you may need an initialization program for PnP sound cards with a non-PnP BIOS or if you don't like the automatically chosen resources.

What is the Antec case behind the Gigabyte one?

idspispopd wrote:

Why do you need a TSR for SB16? (...)

By "TSR" I meant the usual drivers you have to load in the config.sys and autoexec.bat for SB16 operation - SB Pro2 doesn't need any.

bristlehog wrote:

What is the Antec case behind the Gigabyte one?

It's an Antec VSK-4000E - it houses a Pentium IV / Win XP system:
PIV 3.2ghz, P4C800-ED & Geforce 6800 Ultra system

Quick update: I swapped the CT1600 with a CT2230 last year and took some pics at the same time but never posted them until now. As some of you pointed out an SB16 is more era correct when it comes to socket 7, and I felt the digitized sound wasn't as good with the CT1600 (I don't know what are the technical differences for this). I'm really pleased with the CT2230, I used to own a CT1750 in the past and the CT2230 is definitely quieter regarding noise levels.

As you can see on the pictures I didn't overthink the "cable management" part. Also, I have no free bays left as two are taken by the "ClearCMOS" switches (used to change the multiplier and bus frequency), and one by the PS/2 bracket. Lastly, there is no backplate so the Serial connector is just hanging there, but I'm leaving it just in case even though I don't really need it right now. So there is definitely room for improvement, any ideas are welcome!

Do you have to turn the computer off, to change FSB via the switches on the back?

I would imagine that between the 100, 133, 166, and 233 clock speeds, AND being able to run Setmul at any of those clock speeds, you have a very wide range of speeds you can run out, down to slow 386 and probably some 486 speeds too. Nice! Very well done, sir.

Thanks! I have to say I'm not familiar with Setmul, but I sometimes disable caches by going in the Bios for speed sensitive games. Works fine even though I tend to use this PC to play late DOS games more than early titles. I find I often prefer DosBox to play older games.

Also, I always turn off the computer before using the FSB and multiplier switches. Maybe it works "on the fly" but I don't know if there might be a risk of damage to the motherboard by doing so. Better safe than sorry 😀

Setmul is so easy, even a caveman could use it (borrowing from an old auto insurance commercial). Seriously, have setmul.exe somewhere on your computer and add it to your path line. Then make a batch file for each game that needs slowing down. I typically use go.bat. Put in:
setmul l1d
game.exe
setmul l1e

That's it. First line disables L1 cache, 2nd line executes game, 3rd line re-enables L1 after game quits.

But yeah, if you mostly play late DOS games, then it's probably not so useful.

The case is especially beautiful! I like old PCs in new cases and new PCs in old cases. 😀 Share some benchmarks if you get a moment.

Cheers.

Thanks for the info, that's very helpful! I looked at the thread in your signature and learned about Phil's benchmark kit, didn't know he had one - cool idea! Might get around to do some benchmarking soon.

So I ran a few benchmarks with Phil's benchmark suite - I get 82.71 fps in DOOM when i'm running the system at full speed, and as low as 4.32fps when running it at 100mhz with L1 & L2 disabled. In this case, speedsys gives a CPU score of 10.45 which is apparently equivalent to a 386DX40 - it means the system won't run slow enough to play speed-sensitive games of the 286 and early 386 era.

I guess your motherboard doesn't let you reduce the FSB to 50 for 75 MHz?

MMaximus wrote:

So I ran a few benchmarks with Phil's benchmark suite - I get 82.71 fps in DOOM when i'm running the system at full speed, and as low as 4.32fps when running it at 100mhz with L1 & L2 disabled. In this case, speedsys gives a CPU score of 10.45 which is apparently equivalent to a 386DX40 - it means the system won't run slow enough to play speed-sensitive games of the 286 and early 386 era.

Your Doom score on that run is 4.32, which is roughly equivalent to an Am386DX-25, and only 10.8% faster than an Am386SX-40. So it's in a good range for games made between 1990-1992. It's tough to get into the 286-386 range through disabling caches. Oddly, the Pentium II Deschutes drops to those speeds when L1 is disabled, but it can't be slowed down into intermediate steps in the 386 and 486 range. 🙁

edit: oh yeah, rgart added a Cyrix 5x86-133 to the charts and it's performing like a 286 with L1 disabled. I hope he ends up adding results with caches enabled too so we can see how the processor spans.

awgamer wrote:

I guess your motherboard doesn't let you reduce the FSB to 50 for 75 MHz?

It does let me choose 50mhz FSB, actually this is how I get 100mhz (50x2). The problem is the multiplier, 1.5x gets translated into 3.5x if you use a Pentium MMX. So the only way to use 1.5x is with a non-MMX Pentium.