I would vote for the Gigabyte GA 5AX mostly because I have a 233mhz Pentium 1 MMX in a Socket 7 board and Baldur's Gate 1 and especially 2 feels a little laggy on it so if you want to play that then you may be happier with a Pentium II class system. My motherboard doesn't have any cache though so if the GA-5AX does have cache you might be able to get away with a Socket 7 board or if you install a fast K6-2/3 in there then that would be OK.

The Gigabyte GA 5AX is a socket 7 motherboard and you say that it runs slow on Baldur's Gate. In that case I might just go with the Intel 440BX-2 for Windows 98SE games like Baldur's Gate. I still wonder whether the Gigabyte GA 5AX has L1 and L2 caches so I could play mid and early 90s games.

Hi!

440BX systems are the way to go for Win9x 3D games. They are fairly easy to set up, mostly trouble-free and relatively cheap. With Super Socket 7, the fastest CPU you can get is one of the K6-2+/III+ and clock it at 600MHz. This will make the CPU run about on par with a Pentium 2 350.
As you understand, 440BX is a lot more versatile and faster for 3D games.

Reasons to consider the Socket 7 system are:

-You can have up to 3 levels of cache (using a K6+ CPU) which you can enable/disable individually.
-You can use software to control the multiplier and even the bus speed (under Windows).
-In general, software that will crash/prove problematic on faster CPUs, will behave better on socket 7 systems.

Socket 7 systems, especially K6-2+/III+ CPUs, can be much more versatile when it comes to DOS games, particularly speed sensitive titles.

Of the titles you mention:

Syndicate and X-Com will run fine under either system, but the DOS version of X-Com will scroll very fast on a Pentium 2 and upwards.

Ultima 7 is kind of a pain to run on these systems. It uses a proprietary memory management, so you have to have EMM386 disabled. I don't think you can ever hope to get it stable or fast/slow enough on 440BX systems. You may be able to play the game correctly on a Socket 7 system, with the appropriate slow down.

I'm not sure if Wasteland is CPU speed sensitive. If it is, it will be easier to play it on the Socket 7 system. Baldur's Gate 1 should be perfect on a fast K6+, Baldur's Gate 2 will certainly slow down at certain areas, but I figure it should be fine with a decent video card. Age of Empires 1 will be perfect as well and I'm fairly sure Age of Empires 2 will also be flawless, although you may not be able to play it at the greatest available resolution.

The GA-5AX is one of the best boards, which revision do you have? You can easily manipulate L1/L2 cache.

Pretty much what everyone else said 😀

Both are great options, the 440BX is better suited for Windows 98 and later, more demanding, and not speed sensitive games. Super Socket 7 is best suited for DOS games, all the way to really old, speed sensitive games, such as Wing Commander.

I suppose I will just use the 440BX for Win9x games and use the GA-5AX for older, more speed sensitive games that do not work on the 440BX.

My GA-5AX has revision 4.1.

My Voodoo 3500 TV should hopefully be more than (maybe even overkill) enough for games like Baldur's Gate 2.

Could I run Ultima 7 and X-COM(Unfortunately, I do have the DOS version of X-COM) on a GA-5AX system with the L2 cache disabled. From what I have been reading here on VOGONS disabling the L2 cache would turn my computer into a 486 or would I need an actual 486 for say something like Ultima 7. Did you mean a slowdown utility or disabling one of the cache's when you said appropriate slow down for Ultima 7?

TheVibe wrote:

The Gigabyte GA 5AX is a socket 7 motherboard and you say that it runs slow on Baldur's Gate. In that case I might just go with the Intel 440BX-2 for Windows 98SE games like Baldur's Gate. I still wonder whether the Gigabyte GA 5AX has L1 and L2 caches so I could play mid and early 90s games.

Doh! Yes, I meant go with the 440BX.

TheVibe wrote:

I suppose I will just use the 440BX for Win9x games and use the GA-5AX for older, more speed sensitive games that do not work on […]
Show full quote

I suppose I will just use the 440BX for Win9x games and use the GA-5AX for older, more speed sensitive games that do not work on the 440BX.

My GA-5AX has revision 4.1.

My Voodoo 3500 TV should hopefully be more than (maybe even overkill) enough for games like Baldur's Gate 2.

Could I run Ultima 7 and X-COM(Unfortunately, I do have the DOS version of X-COM) on a GA-5AX system with the L2 cache disabled. From what I have been reading here on VOGONS disabling the L2 cache would turn my computer into a 486 or would I need an actual 486 for say something like Ultima 7. Did you mean a slowdown utility or disabling one of the cache's when you said appropriate slow down for Ultima 7?

You've got one of the great revisions 😀. A V3 3500 should be good enough for Baldur's Gate 2, I believe it will run great with a fast K6+ CPU.

X-Com should probably play fine if you disable one of the two caches, you'll have to experiment a little bit. Ultima 7 on the other hand, and I had forgotten about this when I was writing my previous post, will be quite tricky to run, as I believe it re-enables the cache! I haven't seen any other game do that. There's also a Windows9x patch for the game, maybe you'll have more luck with that.

If you buy a K6-III or K6-2+ or K6-III+ CPU, you get extra cache! These CPUs have cache inside the chip that acts as L2 cache. The motherboard cache then becomes L3 cache and with the appropriate tools you can get really versatile!

Yeah...
The 440BX with an P3-800 or faster, Win98 gaming are great. Better choice for win-games than SS7 systems.
SS7 is best left for a pure MS-DOS-6.22 setup. Unless you plan to play a really small number of early Win98 Games and then older DOS games. Then do a Win98 setup based on the SS7 instead of a pure MS-Dos-6.22. (or make a dual boot)

(Just a little hint here: If an K6-3+ or K6-2+ chip are too expensive. Then go for the K6-3 CPU. It has L2 cache, just like the "+" CPU's.)

I'd go for the + CPUs. K6-III do not clock that well and runs much hotter.

F2bnp wrote:

I'd go for the + CPUs. K6-III do not clock that well and much hotter.

My K6-3-400 runs great on both the FIC PA-2013 and the Asus P5A.
For heat issues. There is really nothing to be worried about.
Shure it get's warm. Still nothing as bad as an 2.8/3.0 GhZ P4 Socket 478.
If heat is an issue, then just get a heavier cooler for it.

Performance wise, it is in the range of the P3 based Celeron.
Or an really fast P2.

But in this case (buying a decent socket 7 cooler), you're adding further expense, in which case you should just go for the K6+ CPUs. Are you running your K6-III 400 at stock speed? With K6+ CPUs you can always run them at 550MHz and most of the times at 600MHz. This is definitely a good boost for these CPUs.

It's not like K6-III CPUs are as cheap as Pentium 4 CPUs, they are usually a little cheaper than the K6+ CPUs.

F2bnp wrote:

Are you running your K6-III 400 at stock speed?

Yes... It is brainless, to overclock hardware of this age, and hardware this rare.
For the cooler. They can be found all over in thrift stores and second hand stores.
I have one of those really heavy duty Socket 462 coolers, that fits the socket.
It has an cobber-core. And is just slightly less noisy than a stock SS7 cooler.

Actually...
I just realise, that I have no clue on what socket it actually is.
The cooler could be 370, or it could be 462. It just fits the SS7 socket like a charm.

brostenen wrote:

Yes... It is brainless, to overclock hardware of this age, and hardware this rare. For the cooler. They can be found all over in […]
Show full quote

F2bnp wrote:

Are you running your K6-III 400 at stock speed?

Yes... It is brainless, to overclock hardware of this age, and hardware this rare.
For the cooler. They can be found all over in thrift stores and second hand stores.
I have one of those really heavy duty Socket 462 coolers, that fits the socket.
It has an cobber-core. And is just slightly less noisy than a stock SS7 cooler.

Actually...
I just realise, that I have no clue on what socket it actually is.
The cooler could be 370, or it could be 462. It just fits the SS7 socket like a charm.

You call it brainless, I call it serving my needs.

Most Socket 370/462 coolers, especially the beefier/copper ones will not fit in socket 7 boards because of bad design on the boards. There are usually capacitors all around the socket! So, you usually have to rely on the dinky aluminum socket 7 coolers, which I wouldn't recommend in the case of K6-III CPUs at 2.4V. Not that the system will have any stability issues, but you'd certainly be stressing the CPU and decreasing it's projected lifetime far more than I am by overclocking a K6+ 😵 .

Which cooler are you using though, as it would be very interesting and helpful to know!

F2bnp wrote:

Ultima 7 on the other hand, and I had forgotten about this when I was writing my previous post, will be quite tricky to run, as I believe it re-enables the cache! I haven't seen any other game do that. There's also a Windows9x patch for the game, maybe you'll have more luck with that.

Really, Ultima 7 re-enables one of the caches. I have never in my lifetime heard of a game taking control of your hardware like that. In that case I will install one of the numerous patches for Ultima 7.

F2bnp wrote:

If you buy a K6-III or K6-2+ or K6-III+ CPU, you get extra cache! These CPUs have cache inside the chip that acts as L2 cache. The motherboard cache then becomes L3 cache and with the appropriate tools you can get really versatile!

Well, I only really have an Intel Celeron 300mhz, a 1ghz Pentium 3 (this one is not encased in a heat sink) and a 733mhz Pentium 3.The 300mhz and 733mhz have attached fan heat sinks (you know the ones encased in the heat sink). I intend to put these on the 440BX board but I am 90% sure my Gigabyte GA 5AX board does have an AMD k6-1/2/3 (unsure which one).

brostenen wrote:

Yeah...
The 440BX with an P3-800 or faster, Win98 gaming are great. Better choice for win-games than SS7 systems.
SS7 is best left for a pure MS-DOS-6.22 setup. Unless you plan to play a really small number of early Win98 Games and then older DOS games. Then do a Win98 setup based on the SS7 instead of a pure MS-Dos-6.22. (or make a dual boot)

I will most likely put a P3-733mhz on my computer. I am sure that is enough for most Win9x games(at least the ones made in the 90s) . I was thinking since I only have one computer for win9x and DOS, I should just install Win 98SE and MS DOS 6.22 on the hard drive then just switch the motherboard when I want to play DOS games. Say, I wanted to play DOS games I would take the 440BX with a 733mhz cpu out of the computer and insert the Gigabyte GA 5AX with an AMD cpu. Theoretically, that would allow me to play both DOS and Win 9x games on one machine. Ofcourse, I would use the Voodoo3 3500 for DOS and Win9x games. Not quite sure if that is a good idea or is it just plain madness. I know that it will most likely be a complete hassle but it sounds good to me or should I just use 2 machines for that?

TheVibe wrote:

...
Really, Ultima 7 re-enables one of the caches. I have never in my lifetime heard of a game taking control of your hardware like that. In that case I will install one of the numerous patches for Ultima 7.
...

This cache re-enabling only seems to be for L1 Cache, and for certain CPU/ chipsets only. For example, on my Pentium 4 with i875p chipset, I can disable both L1 and L2 caches, and Ultima 7 isn't capable of re-enabling L1.

Bear in mind with something like an AMD K6-III+ (has on-die L2 Cache), and when your BIOS has control over 'External Cache' (i.e. L3 Cache), you can use SETMUL to enable L1 and disable L2. Whilst leaving L3 enabled, and with the appropriate FSB and Multiplier settings, you should have fine control over speed settings. Moreover, L1 is still enabled, so Ultima 7 can't re-enable it.

EDIT:
Regarding the K6-III+ L1/L2/L3 mentioned above, just realised this seems to make a difference when you have a Turbo/Deturbo option on your board, and what I mentioned above is with Deturbo enabled.

F2bnp wrote:

You call it brainless, I call it serving my needs.

Most Socket 370/462 coolers, especially the beefier/copper ones will not fit in socket 7 boards because of bad design on the boards. There are usually capacitors all around the socket! So, you usually have to rely on the dinky aluminum socket 7 coolers, which I wouldn't recommend in the case of K6-III CPUs at 2.4V. Not that the system will have any stability issues, but you'd certainly be stressing the CPU and decreasing it's projected lifetime far more than I am by overclocking a K6+ 😵 .

Which cooler are you using though, as it would be very interesting and helpful to know!

Well, it is true that the P5A wont take this cooler. Though the FIC PA-2013 will take it.
It just fits perfectly. The cooler is an: Sibak AC-06-725BL as far as googling can tell.
Just popped the hood, to find out the brand.

(just some random photo from the net)

I can barely feel the heat from the cpu, using this cooler.

Took a picture of my FIC board with the cooler installed.

And yeah.... I have just the right amount of cooling in this build. 😉
Not too much not too little. Just right. 😜

That is a really good looking cooler, especially for a Socket 7 system!

TheVibe wrote:

I will most likely put a P3-733mhz on my computer. I am sure that is enough for most Win9x games(at least the ones made in the 90s) . I was thinking since I only have one computer for win9x and DOS, I should just install Win 98SE and MS DOS 6.22 on the hard drive then just switch the motherboard when I want to play DOS games. Say, I wanted to play DOS games I would take the 440BX with a 733mhz cpu out of the computer and insert the Gigabyte GA 5AX with an AMD cpu. Theoretically, that would allow me to play both DOS and Win 9x games on one machine. Ofcourse, I would use the Voodoo3 3500 for DOS and Win9x games. Not quite sure if that is a good idea or is it just plain madness. I know that it will most likely be a complete hassle but it sounds good to me or should I just use 2 machines for that?

Mmmmm.... Depends on a lot of factors. No such thing as one system to rule them all.
My solution is 3 different systems, one low power (P54-133) and them two higher powered systems.

My SS7 system is the FIC PA-2013 board, running eighter K6-2-500 or K6-3-400 (depends on what mood I am in)
The SS7 system in question, is for pure MS-DOS-6.22

My 99' machine is purely based on hardware you could get in 1999.
P3-500, TNT2, SB-Live... Yeah, it's not pure 99 hardware, as the soundcard is SB-Live and the drives are new to prevent data corruption.
The P3 system is a pure Win98 machine, for Windows gaming, as the mobo does not have ISA slots.

In other words... Two systems for high end 90's gaming and one system for early 90's gaming.