I've actually built a very similar machine (only with 5x86/DX4 from start):

1) getting a good motherboard is difficult and expensive. My requirements were very similar to yours (except for the 3v support);
2) VLB hardware is even more expensive;
3) maybe that's my karma or the desire to use 5x86/DX4 on a VLB motherboard, but that build required A LOT of tinkering and trial and error almost every step of the way. Literally any Pentium (including the notorious Pentium 60) feels like "it just works" after that. You can read my buildlog above — I really needed a lot of hardware for troubleshooting;
4) you do feel like you need more power all the time. Other have mentioned it already: even on DX4 Doom is okay, but any Build-based game will feel sluggish. Besides, if you're anything like me, you will often need Windows 9x for stuff like running anthology disks;
5) there is almost nothing a 486 can do that a Pentium can't.

All in all I've spent a lot of time and money on 486 and I can't say that I use it often. Whenever I get it from my shelves I keep coming back to a Pentium of some sort after a while. At this point I think it's cool that I can build a very high-end 486 with write-back cache Intel DX4 and a VLB S3 videocard, but that's about it.

With that being said, 486 does feel like an "authentic" DOS PC because it stayed the mainstream gaming option for a very long time. And a lot of people probably did play even the latest DOS games on it. It's just by today standards the gaming experience of 486 isn't too great. It also feels more "special" than a Socket 7/Slot 1 because everything is somewhat closer to the original PCs of the 80s (if that makes sense). Everything needs its own expansion card, motherboards are not too integrated and stuff like turbo really works.

So yeah, it's fun to tinker with the hardware, just not very fun for gaming.

0kool wrote:

squiggly wrote:

Define "better".

Here: as the only DOS machine to handle anything DOS/16-bit related, it should be able to run most if not all games with good FPS.

In that case, not even close. Dos games were being released in 1996, e.ge Duke 3D, Quake1...I was playing them on a K6 233 back in the day, which is Pentium 2 class, so no, a mid-era 486 is not really up to scratch.

The ideal DOS PC today is a K6plus running on a super socket 7 ATX mobo which you can combine with a modern case/power supply from 2018, at least one ISA slot, 5 PCI and an AGP.

From what most of you all are saying, it sounds like a 386 with working turbo and a P233mmx are all you need to cover a vast range of games. I'm curious, which games won't run well on a fast 386 (e.g. 486SXL/DLC), won't run well on a slowed down or sped up P233MMX, but will run well on a 486 (any speed)?

A lot of these discussions tend to end with the poster building whatever hardware combination they feel a special attraction for. Rarely do we build just one non-modern computer system and live happily ever after. For me, I have a fascination with running early 3D games w/3D accelerated graphics cards on an Cyrix 5x86-133, irregardless of how impractical it is. Yesterday I was fooling around with Unreal (classic) on a socket 3 system with a Voodoo2 and was thinking, 'this ain't so bad' [side note, anyone know how to check the framerate?]. I suspect the result for you will boil down to your affection for particular combinations of hardware and games.

lvader wrote:

486’s offer poor speed flexibility, a Pentium MMX can be set via setmul to offer a full range of speeds from 386 upwards.

I'd rephrase that to "486's offer great speed flexibility, but are weak on the top-end for late DOS games". Between L1, L2, and Turbo, there's lots of flexibility downwards from its top speed.

edit: here's my time machine chart, showing various speed tiers for both my P200MMX and 486 DX2/66:

clueless1 wrote:

Even a fast 486 is not enough horsepower to play some of the most recent DOS games, especially in high resolutions (think System Shock, US Navy Fighters, Quake, Duke3D, Blood, Shadow Warrior, Redneck Rampage, Cybermage, Screamer, Screamer 2). If your game library doesn't include any of these games, then the 486 will be ultimate for you. 😀

I use a P200MMX Overdrive processor, and with setmul it can be slowed down to 386 and 486 speeds, so it's able to handle all the DOS games that interest me. I also have a 486, and I found its main advantage (between turbo button and disabling caches) is that it can slow down to some in-between speeds compared to the P200 as well as to 286 speeds for the occasional speed sensitive game that needs that speed (Lode Runner, Ultimas I-V). But, for example, I even moved my MT-32 to the P200 system and have no problems using it because I can slow the system down when speed causes sound or gameplay issues. It's just more convenient for me to have one system that can do it all, then to switch back and forth between systems.

My 486 DX4-100 ran quake(with 320x200 with a little bit smaller screen), Duke 3D at 320x200, and Doom too.

@OP for me the ultimate DOS machine is a super socket 7 with k6-3+ with a SoundBlaster Pro 2.0, a nice MPU-401 interface,Voodoo 3 3000 ,32MB of RAM is enough, and a SD to IDE with a 2GB or 4GB card(if you want to have two partitions), for me this build has the longest coverage in dos, but i'm not too experience so more experienced users can disagree.

Personally i have my "white tardis" build which is a S7 Pentium 133mhz, S3 Trio64V+,128MB of ram(it was the only stick that i found working on my parts bin),8GB SD to IDE(i'm using windows 95), SB AWE64 and a 3COM Ethernet card, and i also have my 486 dx4 build, but i did it only to say that i have a 486 it is stashed away from dust,heat and moisture and without a battery (it is a CR2032, but i'm quite paranoid with battery leaks)

This is one of the big reasons to have a collection of systems as some games are speed sensitive while others you need a lot more bang to get along.

feipoa wrote:

Yesterday I was fooling around with Unreal (classic) on a socket 3 system with a Voodoo2 and was thinking, 'this ain't so bad' [side note, anyone know how to check the framerate?].

In the in-game console type `stat fps` and it'll show you the frame time in milliseconds amongst a few other things.

Gered wrote:

feipoa wrote:

Yesterday I was fooling around with Unreal (classic) on a socket 3 system with a Voodoo2 and was thinking, 'this ain't so bad' [side note, anyone know how to check the framerate?].

In the in-game console type `stat fps` and it'll show you the frame time in milliseconds amongst a few other things.

'timedemo 1' also works.

jheronimus wrote:

3) maybe that's my karma or the desire to use 5x86/DX4 on a VLB motherboard, but that build required A LOT of tinkering and tria […]
Show full quote

3) maybe that's my karma or the desire to use 5x86/DX4 on a VLB motherboard, but that build required A LOT of tinkering and trial and error almost every step of the way. Literally any Pentium (including the notorious Pentium 60) feels like "it just works" after that.
[...]
All in all I've spent a lot of time and money on 486 and I can't say that I use it often. Whenever I get it from my shelves I keep coming back to a Pentium of some sort after a while. At this point I think it's cool that I can build a very high-end 486 with write-back cache Intel DX4 and a VLB S3 videocard, but that's about it.

With that being said, 486 does feel like an "authentic" DOS PC because it stayed the mainstream gaming option for a very long time.
[...]
So yeah, it's fun to tinker with the hardware, just not very fun for gaming.

I couldn't agree more. 486 machines are fun for hardware tinkering, because you're right at the bleeding edge of what that generation of hardware could do. But when the later machines came along, especially Slot-1 boards, everything became exceedingly reliable for a while with amazing performance levels compared to the 486, and it took seemingly no effort to get there. Any old parts would go together in a 440BX board and make a high performance DOS machine. But with that convenience, things did start to get a boring, mass-produced feel to them, whereas up to the 486 the machines definitely had more "soul". This was the beginning of the transition into the era of the dull corporate "beige box".

I think many of us want 486 machines because they're so iconic and they represent the pinnacle of that generation of PCs, even while we spend more time on later hardware.

As to the ultimate DOS machine, I think that's a fallacy. So many of us are fascinated by the differences between machines that that's where a lot of the interest is. Whether it's two different sound cards making the same game sound completely different, different video cards giving the same game a different look, or even loading games from different types of rare and unusual storage media, it's the variation that holds a lot of the interest. By restricting yourself to a single "ultimate" machine, you will lose most of that variation and miss out on half the fun!

As some here say, Dx4/5x86 seems like Pentium wannabe and all. And that there is no real reason for building, because Pentium exist.

I beg to differ. As a person growing up with 286, 386 and 486 systems. They carry an enourmeous nostalgic feel and are what I personally know as real Ms Dos systems. Not any Win9x system, just oldschool real Ms Dos operating system. Any Win9x system and newer is what I experienced in my late teens (18/19) and early 20's.

This is also the reason why I rarely use any Dos games on a Win9x setup. Doom, Doom-II and Duke3D, are the only Dos games that ever would think running on a Win9x setup. Dos games on 6.22 and Win9x games on Win9x.

jheronimus wrote:

I've actually built a very similar machine (only with 5x86/DX4 from start): […]
Show full quote

I've actually built a very similar machine (only with 5x86/DX4 from start):

1) getting a good motherboard is difficult and expensive. My requirements were very similar to yours (except for the 3v support);
2) VLB hardware is even more expensive;
3) maybe that's my karma or the desire to use 5x86/DX4 on a VLB motherboard, but that build required A LOT of tinkering and trial and error almost every step of the way. Literally any Pentium (including the notorious Pentium 60) feels like "it just works" after that. You can read my buildlog above — I really needed a lot of hardware for troubleshooting;
4) you do feel like you need more power all the time. Other have mentioned it already: even on DX4 Doom is okay, but any Build-based game will feel sluggish. Besides, if you're anything like me, you will often need Windows 9x for stuff like running anthology disks;
5) there is almost nothing a 486 can do that a Pentium can't.

All in all I've spent a lot of time and money on 486 and I can't say that I use it often. Whenever I get it from my shelves I keep coming back to a Pentium of some sort after a while. At this point I think it's cool that I can build a very high-end 486 with write-back cache Intel DX4 and a VLB S3 videocard, but that's about it.

With that being said, 486 does feel like an "authentic" DOS PC because it stayed the mainstream gaming option for a very long time. And a lot of people probably did play even the latest DOS games on it. It's just by today standards the gaming experience of 486 isn't too great. It also feels more "special" than a Socket 7/Slot 1 because everything is somewhat closer to the original PCs of the 80s (if that makes sense). Everything needs its own expansion card, motherboards are not too integrated and stuff like turbo really works.

So yeah, it's fun to tinker with the hardware, just not very fun for gaming.

Perhaps a DX4-120 with VLB controller and VLB gfx?

To make it special, do it on a VIP board and use SCSI controller. The CPU need to be a true 120 and not a overclocked 100, to make it really special.

clueless1 wrote:

Gered wrote:

feipoa wrote:

Yesterday I was fooling around with Unreal (classic) on a socket 3 system with a Voodoo2 and was thinking, 'this ain't so bad' [side note, anyone know how to check the framerate?].

In the in-game console type `stat fps` and it'll show you the frame time in milliseconds amongst a few other things.

'timedemo 1' also works.

'stat fps' seems to show something that is not really the typical frame rates, its counting polygons and other things. Not sure what the frame = number is; its not the fps. Anyway, timedemo 1 works. After 1 cycle, I recorded a killer average 7.2 fps, which is too slow for my [low] standards. The game is tolerable until you have to start shooting at the boogiemen - the drop in frame rate makes aiming a bit difficult. I suppose it is playable if you were really desperate. Max frame rate in game (not timedemo) was about 30, lowest was 0.77 fps. GLQuake runs buttery smooth in comparison. It was interesting to see how an additional 2 years could be so demanding on your computer, yet, the graphics in Unreal (classic) didn't feel all that more advanced compared to GLQuake (26 fps on the same system).

brostenen wrote:

Perhaps a DX4-120 with VLB controller and VLB gfx?
To make it special, do it on a VIP board and use SCSI controller. The CPU need to be a true 120 and not a overclocked 100, to make it really special.

The Am486DX4-120 doesn't get all that much love 'round here. Too bad Intel didn't qualify their DX4's for 120 MHz, although I haven't run into one which didn't run at 120 MHz.

feipoa wrote:

'stat fps' seems to show something that is not really the typical frame rates, its counting polygons and other things. Not sure what the frame = number is; its not the fps.

As I said in my post, the frame number is the frame render time in milliseconds. For example, when playing at a display mode running at 60hz max, 16ms = 60FPS. `timedemo 1` isn't available on every version of Unreal (it's not my version, patched up to the latest patch). I believe that command was only added with Unreal Gold.

brostenen wrote:

Perhaps a DX4-120 with VLB controller and VLB gfx?

To make it special, do it on a VIP board and use SCSI controller. The CPU need to be a true 120 and not a overclocked 100, to make it really special.

You're talking about running VLB at 40 MHz FSB? Yeah, I could even go with an AMD 5x86 for 4x40 (I have an Opti895 motherboard that can do that nicely). But again, it would be a pure hardware project at the end of which you get a system that can't touch even a mid-range Pentium in games.

Errius wrote:

what's the Doom map with the most enemies?

The enemies are not the most strenous thing, it's mainly the ceilngs and floors(visplanes) that take a lot ot of the cpu. The enemies, masked walls(walls with openings) and normals walls of course also pack a punch.

If you want a stressful commercial map then start up DoomII's Map22("Catacombs"). Make sure to run Doom/II with the parameter "-devparm" and keep an eye on the dot(s) in the lower left corner. You'll get a feel how a machine copes with Doom after a while... it's pretty interesting. Hard on the machine are also Map14 and Map29.

feipoa wrote:

The Am486DX4-120 doesn't get all that much love 'round here. Too bad Intel didn't qualify their DX4's for 120 MHz, although I haven't run into one which didn't run at 120 MHz.

Exactly. I think the reason why nobody really take notice, is that it is a quite rare and expensive CPU.
When they show up, the price is well over 50 US Dollars a piece.

jheronimus wrote:

brostenen wrote:

Perhaps a DX4-120 with VLB controller and VLB gfx?

To make it special, do it on a VIP board and use SCSI controller. The CPU need to be a true 120 and not a overclocked 100, to make it really special.

You're talking about running VLB at 40 MHz FSB? Yeah, I could even go with an AMD 5x86 for 4x40 (I have an Opti895 motherboard that can do that nicely). But again, it would be a pure hardware project at the end of which you get a system that can't touch even a mid-range Pentium in games.

I was thinking in those lines, because I have an AMD 486dx4-120 project in mind. I have the real dx4-120 CPU and I have VLB controllers. I just need to get an VLB VGA card for the project. I am running a dx2-80 on pure VLB and I have an 5x86-133 machine too. And I have parts for doing a 486dx33 machine. I only need to take my time doing it.

As someone who only just got into vintage PCs as a serious hobby within the past year or two, I'd definitely cast my lot with the hardware enthusiasts for the main reasons i chose a 486 for my first major project. Playing games on a polished up and fully optimized finished build is what I see as sort of the credit roll for the real game, which for me is the build experience. The PC I grew up with was the original 5150 but I didn't really game on PCs until the late Pentium era. The first PC I ever built myself was super socket 7, so I pretty much started in easy mode. Any hardware predating the Pentium was always a sort of ancient esoteric mystery.

If you want to catch up on that lost knowledge and experience every challenge and quirk of a vintage PC, the 486 is a good place to do it. With the right board it's like a playground of forgotten interfaces, protocols, and standards (or lack thereof). In one place you've got access to ISA, VLB and PCI buses, MFM, RLL, SCSI, and IDE storage, a hundred flavors of legacy operating systems and shells, and physical switches and jumpers for just about everything that was ever physically controllable or configurable. Sure, socket 7's got a lot of that too, but on a typical socket 3 board it's on you to select, connect, install, jumper and configure every single thing.
It'll give you the keyboard port, but the rest is totally up to you. I feel like you learn a lot more because you have to. Nothing works unless you make it. Once you've got it all figured out and running smoothly, though, it's a really satisfying feeling. That all applies to earlier platforms too of course, but at the end of the day you'll probably want to actually play with some software and having a 486 DX2 or better broadens your options quite a bit in that regard.

Really though, one of my favorite features in hardware from that pre-pentium era that's seldom seen later on is the ability to upgrade individual chips and components even on the expansion cards themselves. Add in or swap out your own RAMDACs, EPROMs, DRAM, SRAM, VRAM, even RAM on the freakin' sound card. Whether it's practical or not, it's just cool that you can. That is assuming you can find the parts you need or even identify them in the first place, but then that's also part of the fun. Or at least I think so.

brostenen wrote:

As some here say, Dx4/5x86 seems like Pentium wannabe and all. And that there is no real reason for building, because Pentium ex […]
Show full quote

As some here say, Dx4/5x86 seems like Pentium wannabe and all.
And that there is no real reason for building, because Pentium exist.

I beg to differ. As a person growing up with 286, 386 and 486 systems.
They carry an enourmeous nostalgic feel and are what I personally know as real Ms Dos systems.
Not any Win9x system, just oldschool real Ms Dos operating system.
Any Win9x system and newer is what I experienced in my late teens (18/19) and early 20's. [..]

I've got mixed feelings (can't decide). 😐 An unpopular 8-Bit machine aside,
I grew up with 286 and 386/486 ISA systems running DOS/MOS/Win3.1 (2.03 even),
but i also have a few nice memories of my first 586/PCI systems (Pent.75 to 166MMX) running OS/2 Warp, Linux or Win98SE.

For plain DOS, however, a pure AT-Style motherboard definitely has a special place in my heart. 😀
586 and higher mainboards might do include things like USB, ACPI, as well as an enhanced flavors of the PIC (APIC) and PIT.
They also often include serial ports that arent using the classic 16450 / 16550 UARTs anymore some old programs expect to see or
a few of the 586 mainboards are using the more modern 3.3v signals internally instead of 5v.

- There's nothing wrong with them, they work just fine. However, I like to run my DOS software on "native" hardware
that it was written for and which my PC/AT books describe in detail (because I like to do low-level stuff *sometimes* when I tinker with electronics).
That's one of the special cases where I think one of these "Pentiums with 486 pinouts" would make sense to me (personally spoken).
They improve performance without taking away the eco system surrounding it. That's why I can stand the 486DLCs also, I guess.
Anyway, from a practial point of view, this perhaps makes little sense to others.

Edit: Typos and Quote fix-up.
Edit: Minor edit.

clueless1 wrote:

I'd rephrase that to "486's offer great speed flexibility, but are weak on the top-end for late DOS games". Between L1, L2, and […]
Show full quote

lvader wrote:

486’s offer poor speed flexibility, a Pentium MMX can be set via setmul to offer a full range of speeds from 386 upwards.

I'd rephrase that to "486's offer great speed flexibility, but are weak on the top-end for late DOS games". Between L1, L2, and Turbo, there's lots of flexibility downwards from its top speed.

edit: here's my time machine chart, showing various speed tiers for both my P200MMX and 486 DX2/66:

time_machines.png

I guess, but try running Ultima7 on your 486. I can dial in the speed just right on my p233 mmx.