It depends on what games you want to play, ultimately. Many games from the XT-286-386 era have timing issues to a greater or lesser degree which require slowdown techniques on faster hardware. The Socket 7 and Super Socket 7 platforms tend to have a great deal of flexibility in this area by manipulating L1 and L2 caches either with K6-2 or Pentium MMX CPUs.

Some users report good success using S370 hardware and VIA cpus, perhaps even better than AMD SS7 processors, so you might give that a try.
Re: via c3 nehemiah motherboard compatability

This should be in Marvin. This subforum is for Windows games.

There's not really a lot of point in using W98SE other than as a platform for DOS games, everything that runs in '98 will run just as well under XP, and most games will still run on modern Windows (allowing for the lack of hardware Directsound acceleration after XP).

A pentium 3 will run most of the games, probably be a bit faster than necessary really. Some old adventures and Ultimas tend to like a 486 due to execution speed. Make sure there are two ISA slots, in case you want to run more than one sound/MIDI card.

Moved to Marvin.

ynari wrote:

There's not really a lot of point in using W98SE other than as a platform for DOS games, everything that runs in '98 will run just as well under XP, and most games will still run on modern Windows (allowing for the lack of hardware Directsound acceleration after XP).

A pentium 3 will run most of the games, probably be a bit faster than necessary really. Some old adventures and Ultimas tend to like a 486 due to execution speed. Make sure there are two ISA slots, in case you want to run more than one sound/MIDI card.

There's lots of games that don't work in 2000/XP, the Sega PC catalog as a whole is pretty notorious. Just about any Win9x game that depended on Win16 or DOS won't work with 2000/XP. If the only games one wants to play are compatible with Win9x, why not just use 9x? I don't see any point in running XP unless you have a game or program that requires it.

Another advantage to running Win98SE or ME over XP is a tiny footprint. XP is very heavy by comparison, even more with each Service Pack you add on top.

Can you give an example of a SegaPC game that doesn't work on XP? I'm very surprised it doesn't work. I have a Sonic game, but that explicitly includes support for 2000/XP.

My point isn't that 98 is useless, it's that if you have an XP machine already, that will usually run all Windows games. With 64 bit versions of Windows obviously win 16 software won't work.

radivx wrote:

I've been wanting to build a cool retro system for some time now. I'm determined to use real hardware and would love to base the […]
Show full quote

I've been wanting to build a cool retro system for some time now.
I'm determined to use real hardware and would love to base the system on something that covers the most games possible.

I've got a Athlon XP 3200+ computer that I will fit with Windows XP. I think that this will take care of most of the AGP era graphics.

I'm mainly looking for something to cover MS-DOS -> Windows 98 SE games.
I've found a few Pentium III motherboards with ISA slots on eBay. Are there any benefits of using older hardware than this?
Any thoughts/suggestions on high performance/compatibility hardware like soundcards, video cards, etc.?

The best hybrid hardware, hmmm.... That's a tough one. As you might have to go for two or three systems here.
Really old DOS games (pre-Doom), require a slow machine, and for emulating such, a Pentium1 system with Cache disabled are a good contender.
The problem here, is that you loose the power-punch for Win98 games.

Then you can go the route of the K6. I mean.... Disabling cache will emulate slow CPU's like a 486 or something.
Though it has a lesser 386/486 feel to it, you get that "punch" for midrange Win98-gaming. (resolution/Framerate-wise)

Finally, you can choose a Pentium-III running at aprox 1200 to 1400 for that nice power experience.
This is the least recommended on my behalf, as it is the lesser Dos compatible machine.
Shure you can still disable cache and whatnot, it is just, that something like a K6-III+ is way more flexible for the job.

If you are not really into high resolution, what-have-we-not Win98 games. Then go for the K6-III+ platform.
Set it up for dual-booting, because disabling cache might give a butt-slow Win98 experience even when the goal is loading Dos games.
Then a dualboot seem's like the best way, for starting a Dos-game up the fastest.

Hope these basic advices can help you on you'r way to a new build. 😀

ynari wrote:

There's not really a lot of point in using W98SE other than as a platform for DOS games, everything that runs in '98 will run just as well under XP, and most games will still run on modern Windows (allowing for the lack of hardware Directsound acceleration after XP).

A pentium 3 will run most of the games, probably be a bit faster than necessary really. Some old adventures and Ultimas tend to like a 486 due to execution speed. Make sure there are two ISA slots, in case you want to run more than one sound/MIDI card.

OP want's a Win98 box, just as well as others wan't one. You'r statement "everything that runs in '98 will run just as well under XP" are a bit wrong, as something will not run on Win98 (I have a trivial persuit game that only want's Win98). Then there are all these games that required patches, like Diablo and stuff, and if those patches are gone bye bye from the internet and nobody here has a copy. Well.... Then the game is unplayable on WinXP.
And then if I remember correct, are those few titles, that even though can be launched on XP are unstable as hell on XP. They simply require Win98, thus rendering XP useless for those games.

Flight sims tend to be picky. Jane's Longbow 2, for example, doesn't run well with CPU above 1 GHz, so I think the system for Win 98 to cover the widest range of games possible is Pentium III 600 MHz with 440BX board.

You can also use build a Pentium 4-based (socket 478) DOS/Win98 hybrid, especially if you can find Pentium 4 mobo with ISA slots. In DOS, the use is rather limited though, like playing Quake in 1024x768 resolution using software mode, but if you like to put rocket engine on a skate board, that could be your thing. A Pentium 4 system is more useful for Windows 98 though. If you love Win9x flight sims and don't want to bother with Windows XP patch (Jane's USAF comes to mind), then you'd probably need the fastest Windows 98 system possible --one with Pentium 4 CPU and either GeForce 59xx or 68xx GPU.

True.... Well said... I will recommend two build's. One like the 3-in-one pure DOS as Phil has done on youtube and then a faster one for pure Win98.

Yea quite a few options.

Socket 7 / Super Socket 7 platform is great. Stronger for DOS, good for Windows 98 but not for later games.

Slot 1 is also great. Weaker for DOS, mostly the older speed sensitive games, but fantastic for Windows 98 with lots of processor options to dial in performance.

If you want a system that will cover the widest possible range of DOS and early Windows games, K6+ on (Super) Socket 7 can't be beaten.
Software cache and multiplier control allows you a wide range of speeds from fast 386 to Pentium 2-class.
A K6+ at 450Mhz will cater for all the Windows games that don't play nice on your XP box.

There's a lot of material out there about this combination. One of the best must be Phil's "Building a 4 in 1 Retro Gaming PC"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcAqRbFFQPU

Personally I like the combination of K6+ on Intel TX, it's super stable.
Video: Voodoo3, or perhaps a TNT2/Geforce2 MX with a Voodoo2
Sound: AWE32 or SB32 ideally with real OPL

This is a basic list for a decent hybrid machine. Not much to it, and I bet it can be done better. 😉
The last Win98 games, require a bit faster machine and it is not suited for really old Dos games.
It is just right in the middle of it all.

-Gigabyte GA-5AX, FIC PA-2013 or Asus P5A. Make shure you get a good revision to avoid problems.
-AMD K6-III+ 450mhz.
-128mb Ram.
-Voodoo3-3000 or 3500. Voodoo2-sli + TNT2-Pro when dealing with crippeled AGP slot's.
-A nice and fast HDD.
-DVD drive.
-One of these: AWE64-Gold, AWE32 with OPL-chip, Vortex2 or an YMF-724.

You need fast DOS system for hi-res unaccelerated 3D texture-mapped DOS games. Popular titles like Duke Nukem 3D and Blood are remade in OpenGL, so you don't need fast DOS hardware for those. I'm talking about lesser known games like F-22 Lightning II, Dawn Patrol, Top Gun: Fire At Will with -superhi option, Azrael's Tear, and the first System Shock. I've tried Azrael's Tear and Dawn Patrol using DOSBOX, running on 2.4 GHz Intel Core i5 CPU, and frame rate is not smooth. The choppiness doesn't hamper gameplay, but it's noticeable. F-22 Lightning II is another thing though; its choppiness is enough to hamper gameplay that it feels like playing on Pentium 100 again. As such, the needs may vary. A Pentium III 600 should be more than enough to run Azrael's Tear silky smooth, but I guess you need something like Pentium 4 to run unaccelerated Quake in 1024x768.

You don't need fast DOS system for hi-res, unaccelerated, non-textured (or barely textured) 3D games, nor do you need it for low-res (320x200) textured 3D games. For such games, DOSBOX will suffice. Star Rangers runs fine on DOSBOX.

Then, Windows 98. The person I knew to run the fastest Windows 98 system is Malik; he runs it on a Core 2 Duo CPU with GeForce 6800 GT PCIe, if I recall correctly. One may wonder why would you need such fast system for Windows 98. After all, most Windows 98 3D games are GPU accelerated, either with GLide, Direct3D, or OpenGL, so the need for fast CPU actually becomes less important. However, there are actually games that benefit from faster GPU, but are problematic on XP. Jane's USAF is "new enough" to benefit from faster GPU, especially when you want AA, but the game needs patch to run on XP. Jane's F/A-18 is also problematic in Windows XP, yet the game actually needs fast GPU and CPU for silky smooth frame rate.

Also, there's Aureal 3D consideration. I've never tried Aureal 3D sound cards on XP, but I read it's problematic. So if you want to experience Half Life 1 with a real Aureal 3D sound card, then you'd need to build a pretty fast Windows 98 system.

Some users have had success with the VIA C3 CPUs using either BX with slotkets or VIA S370 chipsets.
Disabling cache on newer CPUs

-

radivx wrote:

I'm mainly looking for something to cover MS-DOS -> Windows 98 SE games.

Many ones prefer to have a separate machines for DOS and Win9x. You may build a machine either bad for Win9x + good for DOS, or good for Win9x + bad for DOS. The examples of 1st variant are Pentiums and K6-3. There are also VIA C3, but the compatibility of exotic things is less known.
As there is excellent DOS emulator DOSBox and there is no still similarly good emulator for Win9x games, the 2nd variant is better. For example, a machine with ISA and slot1 with P3 1000EB. It may be slowdowned to 500 MHz (~P2 level) - what helps with some DOS stuff. You may switch off the cache and get 386 20 MHz level. On hardware level you'll still can: 1) insert slower PII CPU, 2) use ISA video card and get a little more slowdown (with cards like Trident this more may to be more) - especially if you was happy to get Coppermine board with 2 ISA slots or at least SB-Link connector+YMF. Such P3 is also fast enough to play 386 era games through DOSBox, in case you'd want.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

I guess you need something like Pentium 4 to run unaccelerated Quake in 1024x768

800x600 on P3 600 MHz gives >30 fps

Lots of great advice here. As has been said, depending on how old you want to go on the DOS games, you will probably need two systems. If you only care about newer DOS games, many of them can be played within Win98 command prompt, or worst case, reboot to MS-DOS mode.

I maintain a chart of various CPUs and how they perform with caches disabled (link in signature). I do not have results for every CPU, but from the results I do have, it looks like the K6-III+ 400 with MVP3 chipset has the biggest range in performance:
-At full speed it can handle any SVGA DOS game and probably most Win98 games, at least up to around 1999.
-with L1 disabled it performs like a 22.5Mhz 486.
-with all caches disabled it performs like a 25Mhz Am386DX.

Personally, I never use my Win98 system. Many of the games I have for it either work in XP natively or I can buy a GOG.com version that will work in XP. So my setup is a highish end XP for GOG.com games as well as native games up to around 2009, and a Pentium Overdrive 200MMX DOS machine which can run as a 386DX-25 (all caches disabled), 386DX-29 (L1 disabled), 486SX-18 (L1 code cache disabled), 486SX-23 (L1 data cache disabled), P133 (branch prediction disabled), or full speed. It's got similar range as the K6-III+ except it won't go as fast at full speed, so SVGA DOS games and Win98 games will play better on the K6-III+.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

You need fast DOS system for hi-res unaccelerated 3D texture-mapped DOS games. Popular titles like Duke Nukem 3D and Blood are […]
Show full quote

You need fast DOS system for hi-res unaccelerated 3D texture-mapped DOS games. Popular titles like Duke Nukem 3D and Blood are remade in OpenGL, so you don't need fast DOS hardware for those. I'm talking about lesser known games like F-22 Lightning II, Dawn Patrol, Top Gun: Fire At Will with -superhi option, Azrael's Tear, and the first System Shock. I've tried Azrael's Tear and Dawn Patrol using DOSBOX, running on 2.4 GHz Intel Core i5 CPU, and frame rate is not smooth. The choppiness doesn't hamper gameplay, but it's noticeable. F-22 Lightning II is another thing though; its choppiness is enough to hamper gameplay that it feels like playing on Pentium 100 again. As such, the needs may vary. A Pentium III 600 should be more than enough to run Azrael's Tear silky smooth, but I guess you need something like Pentium 4 to run unaccelerated Quake in 1024x768.

You don't need fast DOS system for hi-res, unaccelerated, non-textured (or barely textured) 3D games, nor do you need it for low-res (320x200) textured 3D games. For such games, DOSBOX will suffice. Star Rangers runs fine on DOSBOX.

Then, Windows 98. The person I knew to run the fastest Windows 98 system is Malik; he runs it on a Core 2 Duo CPU with GeForce 6800 GT PCIe, if I recall correctly. One may wonder why would you need such fast system for Windows 98. After all, most Windows 98 3D games are GPU accelerated, either with GLide, Direct3D, or OpenGL, so the need for fast CPU actually becomes less important. However, there are actually games that benefit from faster GPU, but are problematic on XP. Jane's USAF is "new enough" to benefit from faster GPU, especially when you want AA, but the game needs patch to run on XP. Jane's F/A-18 is also problematic in Windows XP, yet the game actually needs fast GPU and CPU for silky smooth frame rate.

Also, there's Aureal 3D consideration. I've never tried Aureal 3D sound cards on XP, but I read it's problematic. So if you want to experience Half Life 1 with a real Aureal 3D sound card, then you'd need to build a pretty fast Windows 98 system.

Do you know any more details about that 9x core 2 rig?

Tertz wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

I guess you need something like Pentium 4 to run unaccelerated Quake in 1024x768

800x600 on P3 600 MHz gives >30 fps

I think it's more like 'your mileage may vary' thing, as well as difference between games. My 2.4 GHz i5 is fast enough for Screamers and Test Drive Off-Road in DOSBOX --both running in 640x480. In Azrael's Tear, the choppiness becomes noticeable, although not enough to hamper gameplay. F-22 Lightning II is so choppy that it's downright unplayable.

And of course, there are people who just want to put rocket engine in their skateboard.

nforce4max wrote:

Do you know any more details about that 9x core 2 rig?

All I remember is Malik telling me his system has PCIe version of GeForce 6800 running on Core 2 Duo platform; I don't even remember whether the GeForce is 6800 GT or 6800 Ultra. You may want to ask him though.