I only have a view Megabytes free, so only small games possible.
Perhaps some win95-remakes of old games.

lets see what this is https://archive.org/details/WIN95GAMES

dr.zeissler wrote:

I only have a view Megabytes free, so only small games possible.

Storage or RAM?

both! 512MB HDD and 32MB RAM 😀 CirrusLogic 1MB (CL542x)
For the Games I only want to about 100MB.

Use an external Zip100 drive to store games on. 😁

Vanilla W95a on a 486 here. HD in a 5.25" slot caddy for easy removal and off-rig file/data transfer & setup.

no problem! my 486 has several connections:

- onboard-lan 10mbit ->NAS 8TB 😀
- 2x2gb cf
- 4way lpt-switchbox
lpt1a-covox
lpt1b-parcp to atari-megaste
lpt1c-commodore 1541-II
lpt1d-zipdrive100mb

derSammler wrote:

Use an external Zip100 drive to store games on. 😁

what have you installed on it?

I don't use a Zip100; that was addressed to you since you said you are low on storage space.

I'm using an 8 GB CF card with plenty of room for games. 😁

derSammler wrote:

Well, an AMD 5x86 X5-133 is as fast as a Pentium 75. Actually, it's even faster than a P75

pfft

try Quake

feipoa wrote:

At first I thought you made a typo with "SX2/66" and really meant to write "SX2/50", but low and behold, there really was an FPU-less SX2 at 66 MHz. http://chipdb.org/img-intel-a80486sx2-66-q0569-es-6750.htm

What was the market for the SX2-66? Why would someone go for this chip over a DX2-66? How much savings was there? I'm surprised Intel even made this. Did Intel really have a sizable quantity of Intel DX2-66 chips with defective FPUs? I thought Intel just disabled the FPUs on perfectly fine DX2 chips to make the SX.

Based on a few online resources there was never a publically released SX2 66, only the SX2 50. The chip you linked to is an internal engineering sample. Likely one intel was testing but never released. The early SX chips were DX chips with a defective/disabled FPU, but later on in the production of the 486 intel created a dedicated FPU-less die for the SX line. You can tell which die an SX has by the shape of the gold cover on the bottom.

Good info with a photo here:
http://www.os2museum.com/wp/lies-damn-lies-and-wikipedia/

derSammler wrote:

But a P75-like machine can handle early Win9x games fine if the rest of the system isn't crappy.

Perhaps games like pod racer or games from 1995, yet Win98-era games? No way.
Anything lower than P-266-mmx are for MS-Dos-6.22 only in my book, if we have to talk about gaming.
Shure I had Win95 installed on the 486dx2-66 I had in the mid to last half of the 90's.
Yet that was not for gaming Win9x games. I had MS-Office installed on it and ran Doom through Win95.
(I had other systems installed on it as well. Linux and Os/2)

My first experiences with Win9x as a gaming platform, was the K6-II-500 I bought around 1998.
I had Win98 installed on it, and still I was not pleased with gaming performance. Too slow.
Shure you can try a 486/486-like CPU for experimenting and see the lagging up close in person.
Nobody will stop anyone for trying.

On and off, I have been compiling a list of playable early 3D games for my Cyrix 5x86-133 system (Win95c). An AMD Am5x86-160 should play similarly. Many of us were still using a 486 in 1997 and 1998. I wasn't the only individual among my peers still using a 486 in 1998.

My tests were done using a Voodoo2, however, I intend to repeat them with a Voodoo1 and I suspect the results won't be too dissimilar.

• DOOM, DOOM II, Final DOOM, including GLDOOM.
  Descent I/II OK. Descent III way too slow.
  Raptor
  Quake and WinQuake at 320x200
  GLQuake at 800x600 OK. Quake II/III way too slow.
  Battlezone. Most probably won't find this enjoyable, but I think it is just playable.
  Tomb Raider, Tomb Raider Unfinished Business
  Tomb Raider II & III.
  MDK OK. MDK2 way too slow.
  Magic Carpet II
  Destruction Derby
  Half-Life too slow.
  Outlaws
  Abuse
  Carmegeddon plays good and looks good with Voodoo2c.exe
  Blood too slow.
  Incoming too slow.
  Duke Nukem 3D at 640x480.
  Forsaken
  Subspace
  Dark Forces I/II
  Diablo
  Grand Theft Auto (DOS version has best resolution, even when played in Windows)
  Need for Speed I/II. I was surprised by II playing fine. Huge difference between software and VoodooII
  Unreal (classic) plays OKish until you need to start firiing at an enemy. So, too slow.
  Total Annihilation. Plays best at 640x480. 800x600 just acceptable.
  Interstate '76. Use Gold patch. Just OK, but buggy with Voodoo2. Found some tricks to getting it to work properly.
  Interstate '76 Nitro Pack. Same as above.
  Mechwarrior 2: 31st Century COmbat & Mercenaries. Plays OK. Install all patches.
  Mechwarrior 3 is too slow.
  Turok Dinosaur Hunter. Plays fine, but always hangs.
  Turok 2. A little slow, but not unenjoyable.
  Settlers 2 Gold. Plays fine
  Wolfenstein 3D obviously plays fine
  Motoracer plays fine, but need patch 3.22, otherwise freezes
  Heretic, Hexen, Hexen II all play fine at 320x200.
  GLHeretic, GLHexen play beautifully at higher resolution
  GLHexen II plays fine at 800x600
  Motoracer II doesn't work
  Starcraft plays fine
  Starcraft Bloodwar plays fine
  Master of Orion plays fine if you have enough conventional memory and EMS setup properly
  Master of Orion II plays fine
  Descent: Freespace - GOG version didn't work. Need to find original CD.
  Oregon Trail 1.2, 2, Prince of persia play fine
  Xatax plays fine
  Jet Fighter 3 plays poorly, like a slideshow.
  X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter plays fine at 640x480 w/3dfx patch 1.1.4
  X-COM: Apocalypse appears to play fine, but I have no idea how to play it.
  ...
  lots more to test

Katmai500 wrote:

feipoa wrote:

At first I thought you made a typo with "SX2/66" and really meant to write "SX2/50", but low and behold, there really was an FPU-less SX2 at 66 MHz. http://chipdb.org/img-intel-a80486sx2-66-q0569-es-6750.htm

What was the market for the SX2-66? Why would someone go for this chip over a DX2-66? How much savings was there? I'm surprised Intel even made this. Did Intel really have a sizable quantity of Intel DX2-66 chips with defective FPUs? I thought Intel just disabled the FPUs on perfectly fine DX2 chips to make the SX.

Based on a few online resources there was never a publically released SX2 66, only the SX2 50.

The ODP486SX-33 is an SX2-66, and came in two revisions / sSpecs.

debs3759 wrote:

Katmai500 wrote:

feipoa wrote:

At first I thought you made a typo with "SX2/66" and really meant to write "SX2/50", but low and behold, there really was an FPU-less SX2 at 66 MHz. http://chipdb.org/img-intel-a80486sx2-66-q0569-es-6750.htm

What was the market for the SX2-66? Why would someone go for this chip over a DX2-66? How much savings was there? I'm surprised Intel even made this. Did Intel really have a sizable quantity of Intel DX2-66 chips with defective FPUs? I thought Intel just disabled the FPUs on perfectly fine DX2 chips to make the SX.

Based on a few online resources there was never a publically released SX2 66, only the SX2 50.

The ODP486SX-33 is an SX2-66, and came in two revisions / sSpecs.

The ODP486SX-33 is 66 MHz, but has an FPU-enabled DX2 core. I see three sSpecs (SZ801, SZ862, SZ875). Intel later released the SX2ODP50, which was missing the FPU, but was only rated to 50 MHz. There was no SX2ODP66. All ODP486XX models have the FPU enabled.

Some discussion regarding this: http://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php? … hlight=odp486sx
And here: http://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php? … hlight=odp486sx

The LucasArts Desktop adventures might run fine as well.

leileilol wrote:

pfft

try Quake

I tried Quake already. DOS version runs just as bad as on a P75. It's not unplayable, but only runs with 10 to 15 fps. GL Quake however will most likely be very playable thanks to the Voodoo.

brostenen wrote:

Perhaps games like pod racer or games from 1995, yet Win98-era games? No way.

You know the meaning of "early"? No one said it can run games from 1998 or even later. Also, it heavily depends on what games you are talking about. Yes, it won't run Quake II, but it runs Age of Empires at perfect speed, even though both games are from 1997 and AoE even lists a P90 as the bare minimum. You can always find examples for whatever statement. The fun thing about Win9x gaming on a 486 is to find those games that do actually run well.

GL Quake however will most likely be very playable thanks to the Voodoo.

Just tested it and indeed it's very smooth.

//edit:
I just updated my copy of Quake from version 1.01 to 1.08 and now even the DOS version is fast enough to be fully playable. I'm going to make some videos later.

derSammler wrote:

You know the meaning of "early"? No one said it can run games from 1998 or even later. Also, it heavily depends on what games you are talking about. Yes, it won't run Quake II, but it runs Age of Empires at perfect speed, even though both games are from 1997 and AoE even lists a P90 as the bare minimum. You can always find examples for whatever statement. The fun thing about Win9x gaming on a 486 is to find those games that do actually run well.

Yes. I know the meaning of early. The question in this tread is Win95/98 games. That is why I read and hear Windows98 games too. You know. Games from 1998 as well.

It is not me, who is asking about both Win95 and Win98 games on a 486. And not Dos/early-Win95 gaming on a 486.

Does Mortal Kombat 4 from 1998 count? Installed and tested that and it runs with 30+ fps using the Voodoo card.