C0deHunter wrote on 2023-09-03, 18:04:

Thank you all for your great insights and comments. Now let me rephrase (and edit) my original query: […]
Show full quote

Thank you all for your great insights and comments. Now let me rephrase (and edit) my original query:

Since P4 Northwoods is underpowered for these games, what games / period should I consider installing on this machine then?

1) I mean if I have to compromise for a 2000~2003 era, wouldn't a powerfull PIII (which I have) would be suffice to play 2000~2004ish era games?

2) What is a Pentium 4 good for anyways? I am so baffled, because back in the day I used to own multiple P4 machines, and they were OK/capable at playing games.

3) OK, I just found a pristine DELL OptiPlex 170L in my office, which with the following spec:

Prescott 3GHz
2GB DDR (PC3200)
PNY GeForce 6200 PCI (256MB, 550MHz)

4) Is this system capable of running *some* of those games? If not, which games (RTS, FPS) do you recommend?

Thanks!

A P4 is perfectly fine running era appropriate games in period correct resolutions/graphics settings. I'd say a 3 GHz or 3.2GHz P4 is alright up until 2006.
Something like this should work: https://gamesystemrequirements.com/user/rando … /devices/289373

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-09-04, 07:50:

A P4 is perfectly fine running era appropriate games in period correct resolutions/graphics settings. I'd say a 3 GHz or 3.2GHz P4 is alright up until 2006.
Something like this should work: https://gamesystemrequirements.com/user/rando … /devices/289373

Agree. For the early XP era they were perfectly capable processors, especially the high end.

I guess it is always about how you approach your retro systems. Some want to build something from the late XP era to tackle most of the era well. Or P4/sA exclusively for win98 gaming. This is very reasonable approach especially if you want to keep number of your systems at minimum. I'm one of those who take these systems as they are and consider that they do the job well enough for what they were designed and sold for back in the day and that is part of the charm. You usually face a wall only if you ask more of them they are actually capable of. I'm not period correct nazi by any means, but I'm perfectly fine that these machines cover just a small period of time in the history of computing and gaming.

I kind of run the same type of system as you intend, albeit a tad faster CPU.

Specs:
Pentium M 780 2,26ghz (overclocked to 2,5ghz) with ASUS CT-479 adapter in ASUS P4P800-E Deluxe mainboard
2GB Corsair DDR2 RAM (I also have a 4gb set, but with slower timings)
ATI X850XT PE
2x WD Digital Raptor 146GB in RAID 0
Dualboot Win98 and WinXP

My intention for this system was a primarily WinXP setup that could dual boot Win98SE and run everything up to (but not including) FEAR (roughly 2005-2006). FEAR will run, but not with everything max'ed with good framerates. Games newer than this I run on my Win10 setup using a Creative Soundblaster Titanium HD for EAX support.

What I've noticed is that I very rarely have booted into Windows 98. I have other systems that are more period correct for Win98, and I never had much reason to go there on this machine. Also almost all of the software I install (1999 to 2005) run fine in Windows XP. Ofc, if I didn't have those other machines, then it would look different.

This has made me reconsider if I should just go with a pure WinXP setup, but then I wouldn't use this specific mainboard/CPU combination, but something more appropriate, like an ultimate s939 or LGA775 setup.

All depends on what the TS wants. I am very interested in the hardware progression in that era, and try to be more or less period correct in some builds.
My 2002 ultimate configuration, is mainly used as a platform for Win98 specific software, and not specifically for games, even if it holds it own on all games designed for 98.

But if gaming is the raison d'être for a system, and less a showboat for the hardware at the time, I will max out a system and worry less about the period correctness. It just needs to run the game at the best experience possible. With that in mind, P4's just don't cut it, and I'm using a i7 system or dual 1366 system for all things XP.

PIII systems suffer from the same issue, P4's run Win98 better and smoother, so no reason to invest in an expensive slot 1 when a P4 is quasi free.

So @TS, what's the main driver behind this build?

rasz_pl wrote on 2023-09-04, 06:01:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-09-03, 23:31:

However I will take issue with you on the leading tech when all objective tests now with tools that are preiod correct show the Intels do outperform their AMD equals.
AMD were cheaper though... and the tests seem to show there was a reason for that.

This was the time when AMD was first with 64bits, memory controller integrated in the CPU, dual core processors. AnandTech screenshot from Half life 2 tests doesnt lie.

Like I said before, I consider the x64 CPUs (x86-64) to be the next era so while its true AMD took the lead in early part of that era, they fall outside of the scope of this discussion, especially as the topic is the Pentium 4 Northwood period.

We can discuss that of course, I like that era too, but I dont think it belongs in this thread.

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-09-04, 07:50:

C0deHunter wrote on 2023-09-03, 18:04:

Thank you all for your great insights and comments. Now let me rephrase (and edit) my original query: […]
Show full quote

Thank you all for your great insights and comments. Now let me rephrase (and edit) my original query:

Since P4 Northwoods is underpowered for these games, what games / period should I consider installing on this machine then?

1) I mean if I have to compromise for a 2000~2003 era, wouldn't a powerfull PIII (which I have) would be suffice to play 2000~2004ish era games?

2) What is a Pentium 4 good for anyways? I am so baffled, because back in the day I used to own multiple P4 machines, and they were OK/capable at playing games.

3) OK, I just found a pristine DELL OptiPlex 170L in my office, which with the following spec:

Prescott 3GHz
2GB DDR (PC3200)
PNY GeForce 6200 PCI (256MB, 550MHz)

4) Is this system capable of running *some* of those games? If not, which games (RTS, FPS) do you recommend?

Thanks!

A P4 is perfectly fine running era appropriate games in period correct resolutions/graphics settings. I'd say a 3 GHz or 3.2GHz P4 is alright up until 2006.
Something like this should work: https://gamesystemrequirements.com/user/rando … /devices/289373

That's exactly what I am doing now, finished installing XP on Dell OptiPLex 170L (Prescott 3.0GHz) with 2GB DDR, and PNY GeForce 6200 (256MB, PCI)

So far, Half-Life 2 runs great on my period correct 17" ViewSonic CRT (1024x768, yes I love pixellated, jaggy edges, and Anti-aliasing is doing a good job smoothing them pit)

C0deHunter wrote on 2023-09-04, 15:19:

RandomStranger wrote on 2023-09-04, 07:50:

C0deHunter wrote on 2023-09-03, 18:04:

Thank you all for your great insights and comments. Now let me rephrase (and edit) my original query: […]
Show full quote

Thank you all for your great insights and comments. Now let me rephrase (and edit) my original query:

Since P4 Northwoods is underpowered for these games, what games / period should I consider installing on this machine then?

1) I mean if I have to compromise for a 2000~2003 era, wouldn't a powerfull PIII (which I have) would be suffice to play 2000~2004ish era games?

2) What is a Pentium 4 good for anyways? I am so baffled, because back in the day I used to own multiple P4 machines, and they were OK/capable at playing games.

3) OK, I just found a pristine DELL OptiPlex 170L in my office, which with the following spec:

Prescott 3GHz
2GB DDR (PC3200)
PNY GeForce 6200 PCI (256MB, 550MHz)

4) Is this system capable of running *some* of those games? If not, which games (RTS, FPS) do you recommend?

Thanks!

A P4 is perfectly fine running era appropriate games in period correct resolutions/graphics settings. I'd say a 3 GHz or 3.2GHz P4 is alright up until 2006.
Something like this should work: https://gamesystemrequirements.com/user/rando … /devices/289373

That's exactly what I am doing now, finished installing XP on Dell OptiPLex 170L (Prescott 3.0GHz) with 2GB DDR, and PNY GeForce 6200 (256MB, PCI)

So far, Half-Life 2 runs great on my period correct 17" ViewSonic CRT 1024x768, yes I love pixellated, jaggy edges, and Anti-aliasing is doing a good job smoothing them pit)

1024x768 is my go-to resolution for basically any game on a CRT. Its really sharp and even basic 200o's CRTs can it with 75Hz so I don't have to deal with headaches. For ultimate CRT showcase I'd give Doom3 a go, but I don't think a 6200 will like it.

C0deHunter wrote on 2023-09-04, 15:19:

That's exactly what I am doing now, finished installing XP on Dell OptiPLex 170L (Prescott 3.0GHz) with 2GB DDR, and PNY GeForce 6200 (256MB, PCI)

So far, Half-Life 2 runs great on my period correct 17" ViewSonic CRT (1024x768, yes I love pixellated, jaggy edges, and Anti-aliasing is doing a good job smoothing them pit)

Is a 17" CRT really period-correct for a Prescott system and a game from ~2004? I would have said the glory days of 17" CRTs were around... 1996-1998. By 2000, I think many people had moved on to the 19" CRTs at, typically, 1280x1024 at least outside games. (Side note - I have never understood why a different aspect ratio was used - every other PC world resolution was 4:3 at the time, but somehow, the resolution typically used on 19" CRTs was 1280x1024 which is 5:4).

Then 1280x1024 was quite common for the first generation LCDs that I think had become affordableish by 2004-5 or so. Lots of 1024x768 17" LCDs and 1280x1024 19" LCDs from that era. There were also 1600x1200 LCDs though they were quite pricy (I had one... and tried my best to play games at 1600x1200 on a GF3 Ti500 then a 9x00 Pro - can't remember if it was a 9700 or 9800). Then you started to get widescreen 16:10 LCDs later in the decade.

Now, I suspect that serious gamers may have been slow to abandon the nice 19" CRTs for LCDs...

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-04, 16:27:

Is a 17" CRT really period-correct for a Prescott system and a game from ~2004? I would have said the glory days of 17" CRTs were around... 1996-1998. By 2000, I think many people had moved on to the 19" CRTs at, typically, 1280x1024 at least outside games.

That is definitely not the case. LCD monitors outsold CRTs first time in 2003, so CRT sales stayed strong till around mid 2000s. Even after that especially gamers stuck to CRTs, because early LCDs simply sucked in that job.

I myself used 17" inch CRT roughly from 1998 till 2003. Around that time I bought used 21" Nokia monitor and used that up until around 2009 when I finally switched to a LCD screen. I remember when one of my friends decided to go with a LCD panel around 2004-05. I don't remember if it was 15" or 17" screen, but I do remember how shitty it looked compared to quality CRT especially when not in native resolution as scalers were much worse those days, or your FPS dropped under optimal 60.

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2023-09-04, 16:54:

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-04, 16:27:

Is a 17" CRT really period-correct for a Prescott system and a game from ~2004? I would have said the glory days of 17" CRTs were around... 1996-1998. By 2000, I think many people had moved on to the 19" CRTs at, typically, 1280x1024 at least outside games.

That is definitely not the case. LCD monitors outsold CRTs first time in 2003, so CRT sales stayed strong till around mid 2000s. Even after that especially gamers stuck to CRTs, because early LCDs simply sucked in that job.

I myself used 17" inch CRT roughly from 1998 till 2003. Around that time I bought used 21" Nokia monitor and used that up until around 2009 when I finally switched to a LCD screen. I remember when one of my friends decided to go with a LCD panel around 2004-05. I don't remember if it was 15" or 17" screen, but I do remember how shitty it looked compared to quality CRT especially when not in native resolution as scalers were much worse those days, or your FPS dropped under optimal 60.

And I guess I would say that until 2000, I had lousy 14/15" CRTs but my friends had 17s. 19s just seemed to me like they were becoming the most common size by about 2000 or so.

I did get a niiiiiiiice 19" CRT from Sony, complete with dual VGA inputs, stupid high-refresh rates (I think it could do 1600x1200 at 85Hz or something insane like that?) in 2002 or so. There was certainly still room for nice CRTs back then, especially when you factor price - I think that nice CRT was about the same price as a 15" 1024x768 LCD at the time.

When did Sony discontinue their nice CRTs? That, to me, would probably have marked the end of the CRT era, though obviously those monitors stayed in use for years and other, lower-end competitors continued to make CRTs for a while. But my recollection is that at least non-gamers were moving towards small 15-17" LCDs around 2004-5ish... (I actually still have my dad's first LCD, a Dell 1704FPT I think it was, that he got with a C/Deleron 2.4GHz Dell box. Haven't touched it in a long time but if it still works, maybe I'll use it for my future Win98 build.)

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-04, 17:03:

But my recollection is that at least non-gamers were moving towards small 15-17" LCDs around 2004-5ish...

This. It was definitely non-gamers and businesses that started the transition around that time. Friend I mentioned was only a casual gamer and mostly bought the monitor and computer for general use. Although around 04-05 LCDs started to be somewhat affordable, I still remember thinking that LCDs are simply an overpriced fad and people who like to be trendy will only buy them. But if you want seriously a good screen, you go with a CRT.

I have one Lenovo 19” LCD I bought new (or NOS) few years ago. I don’t know if it is still made, but it was for very late like 2015 or so. I bought it to accompany dosbox and some other emulators and it did the job well enough. Although it is relatively late model and with IPS screen, it still looks much worse even on desktop compared to my 19”Sony G400.

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2023-09-04, 17:21:

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-04, 17:03:

But my recollection is that at least non-gamers were moving towards small 15-17" LCDs around 2004-5ish...

This. It was definitely non-gamers and businesses that started the transition around that time. Friend I mentioned was only a casual gamer and mostly bought the monitor and computer for general use. Although around 04-05 LCDs started to be somewhat affordable, I still remember thinking that LCDs are simply an overpriced fad and people who like to be trendy will only buy them. But if you want seriously a good screen, you go with a CRT.

I have one Lenovo 19” LCD I bought new (or NOS) few years ago. I don’t know if it is still made, but it was for very late like 2015 or so. I bought it to accompany dosbox and some other emulators and it did the job well enough. Although it is relatively late model and with IPS screen, it still looks much worse even on desktop compared to my 19”Sony G400.

And... here we are, twenty years later, and there hasn't been a nice CRT manufactured in over 15 years. Not sure when the lower-end models stopped being sold. Ultimately, LCDs became good enough and cheap enough that they won out everywhere.

The Lenovo 19" LCD, I remember seeing on their web site at least a few months ago. Very interesting that they've continued to make/sell that - I wonder if there are perhaps some specialized business uses that really want that size/resolution.

(Now that you say G400... I wonder if my Sony might have been a G420...)

The one thing I will say about LCDs is that they enable some very nice, at least for productivity, larger sizes. You couldn't make a 2560x1440 27" CRT without it weighing an insane amount. Or a 3440x1440 34" ultra-wide CRT...

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-04, 16:27:

Is a 17" CRT really period-correct for a Prescott system and a game from ~2004? I would have said the glory days of 17" CRTs wer […]
Show full quote

C0deHunter wrote on 2023-09-04, 15:19:

That's exactly what I am doing now, finished installing XP on Dell OptiPLex 170L (Prescott 3.0GHz) with 2GB DDR, and PNY GeForce 6200 (256MB, PCI)

So far, Half-Life 2 runs great on my period correct 17" ViewSonic CRT (1024x768, yes I love pixellated, jaggy edges, and Anti-aliasing is doing a good job smoothing them pit)

Is a 17" CRT really period-correct for a Prescott system and a game from ~2004? I would have said the glory days of 17" CRTs were around... 1996-1998. By 2000, I think many people had moved on to the 19" CRTs at, typically, 1280x1024 at least outside games. (Side note - I have never understood why a different aspect ratio was used - every other PC world resolution was 4:3 at the time, but somehow, the resolution typically used on 19" CRTs was 1280x1024 which is 5:4).

Then 1280x1024 was quite common for the first generation LCDs that I think had become affordableish by 2004-5 or so. Lots of 1024x768 17" LCDs and 1280x1024 19" LCDs from that era. There were also 1600x1200 LCDs though they were quite pricy (I had one... and tried my best to play games at 1600x1200 on a GF3 Ti500 then a 9x00 Pro - can't remember if it was a 9700 or 9800). Then you started to get widescreen 16:10 LCDs later in the decade.

Now, I suspect that serious gamers may have been slow to abandon the nice 19" CRTs for LCDs...

Just because people started buying the larger 19" CRTs that doesnt mean they traded their old 17" screens for them!
Yes we still used 17" CRTs in the early 2000s, 19" was more normal on systems and a TFT was offered as an upgrade on lower end systems and standard with mid to high range systems.

I remember those 1600x1200 TFTs as well, they were amazing, they also could cost every bit as much as the computer they were attached to.
I know for a fact the Eizo screens on that time did out price all but the best computers of the time.

CRTs were so much cheaper than an LCD was, and the LCDs while convenient in size didnt match the picture quality of the CRT. Its only in recent years that that has happened.

I remember being excited when I bought a 17" CRT in the late 90s. I used it until the late 00s. My partner at the time (he was a heavy gamer, I was more into IRC) had a 27" CRT, and a quality one at that. Early LCDs were worse than my cheap 17" CRT 😀

debs3759 wrote on 2023-09-04, 18:13:

I remember being excited when I bought a 17" CRT in the late 90s. I used it until the late 00s. My partner at the time (he was a heavy gamer, I was more into IRC) had a 27" CRT, and a quality one at that. Early LCDs were worse than my cheap 17" CRT 😀

Doesnt surprise me.

I think a lot of people, especially retro gamers actually, forget just how good the late CRTs were.
They were big sure, but the image quality really was amazing, and the flat tubes were stunning! And when LCDs took off in popularity the prices dropped like a stone.
I still have a few of mine and have watched the prices for them go through the roof in recent years as some rediscover how good they were.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-09-04, 18:27:

Doesnt surprise me. […]
Show full quote

Doesnt surprise me.

I think a lot of people, especially retro gamers actually, forget just how good the late CRTs were.
They were big sure, but the image quality really was amazing, and the flat tubes were stunning! And when LCDs took off in popularity the prices dropped like a stone.
I still have a few of mine and have watched the prices for them go through the roof in recent years as some rediscover how good they were.

The thing is, there were also a lot of BAD CRTs out there. Especially the ones sold at retail packaged with a matching-brand computer. Compaq/AST/IBM/Packard Hell/etc sure filled up a lot of e-waste dumps with those CRTs.

First color CRT I got in 1995 was 640x480 at 60Hz, 800x600 at 56Hz, 1024x768 interlaced. On a 14". Crazy thing is, I saw that monitor listed on Facebook Marketplace along with the very mediocre AST non-Intel-486 it was bundled with (which I had back in the day) a few months ago and it sold. The computer was even unmodified with its original 4 megs of RAM (mine had been upgraded to 8 and later 20 back in the day). I will never understand what retro enthusiast would want that - if you want a 486, why wouldn't you get a good one with good internals and a good monitor, instead of a mediocre POS with poor expandability that people only bought at the time because parents didn't like dropping $2000 at Joe Schmoe's Clone Shop and preferred something from a clean store with a brand name on it? But hey, someone made a few bucks selling something that was complete e-waste 20 years ago.

Nice CRTs, just like nice LCDs I might add today, were very much one of those things that only knowledgeable buyers who knew what to look for and were willing to pay for it would get. Joe Schmoe's Clone Shop probably had a few options in stock, or could at least order them, but mainstream retailers only offered mediocre monitors... just like today...

VivienM wrote on 2023-09-04, 18:52:

The thing is, there were also a lot of BAD CRTs out there. Especially the ones sold at retail packaged with a matching-brand com […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-09-04, 18:27:

Doesnt surprise me. […]
Show full quote

Doesnt surprise me.

I think a lot of people, especially retro gamers actually, forget just how good the late CRTs were.
They were big sure, but the image quality really was amazing, and the flat tubes were stunning! And when LCDs took off in popularity the prices dropped like a stone.
I still have a few of mine and have watched the prices for them go through the roof in recent years as some rediscover how good they were.

The thing is, there were also a lot of BAD CRTs out there. Especially the ones sold at retail packaged with a matching-brand computer. Compaq/AST/IBM/Packard Hell/etc sure filled up a lot of e-waste dumps with those CRTs.

First color CRT I got in 1995 was 640x480 at 60Hz, 800x600 at 56Hz, 1024x768 interlaced. On a 14". Crazy thing is, I saw that monitor listed on Facebook Marketplace along with the very mediocre AST non-Intel-486 it was bundled with (which I had back in the day) a few months ago and it sold. The computer was even unmodified with its original 4 megs of RAM (mine had been upgraded to 8 and later 20 back in the day). I will never understand what retro enthusiast would want that - if you want a 486, why wouldn't you get a good one with good internals and a good monitor, instead of a mediocre POS with poor expandability that people only bought at the time because parents didn't like dropping $2000 at Joe Schmoe's Clone Shop and preferred something from a clean store with a brand name on it? But hey, someone made a few bucks selling something that was complete e-waste 20 years ago.

Nice CRTs, just like nice LCDs I might add today, were very much one of those things that only knowledgeable buyers who knew what to look for and were willing to pay for it would get. Joe Schmoe's Clone Shop probably had a few options in stock, or could at least order them, but mainstream retailers only offered mediocre monitors... just like today...

Its the same with LCDs.
What is true of one is true for the other. I remember there were OEMs here in the UK that offered cheap monitors with cheap systems and the more you spent the better you got.
Those OEMs did serve a useful purpose, in this country it was Time and Tiny. There were others but those two were the big players with their own stores, then of course there was Dell and Compaq but they were mostly for business users.
They matched monitors to prices. Theres no difference now.
I mean how many people can say they have the best monitor, rather than the best in the price range?

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-09-04, 19:42:

Its the same with LCDs. What is true of one is true for the other. I remember there were OEMs here in the UK that offered cheap […]
Show full quote

Its the same with LCDs.
What is true of one is true for the other. I remember there were OEMs here in the UK that offered cheap monitors with cheap systems and the more you spent the better you got.
Those OEMs did serve a useful purpose, in this country it was Time and Tiny. There were others but those two were the big players with their own stores, then of course there was Dell and Compaq but they were mostly for business users.
They matched monitors to prices. Theres no difference now.
I mean how many people can say they have the best monitor, rather than the best in the price range?

I don't know what retailers in the UK are like, but here (Canada), what's notable is that the mass-market retailers do not stock good monitors. They didn't back in the CRT days, they still don't today in the LCD era.

So, it's not like they show you "here is a $300 monitor and here is a $900 monitor" and try to upsell you. The $900 monitor... just doesn't exist... in their world. So, if you want a $900 monitor and you're willing to pay for it, you need to know it exists and buy it from someone more specialized. The only place where they might try to upsell you is from a smaller low-end monitor to a bigger low-end monitor. And this continues to this day - e.g. you will not find a USB-C-docking-capable monitor at those retailers.

I also remember one incident with an LCD my dad bought in 2008-9 or so. A 24" 1920x1200 Samsung when those had become affordable and before the industry decided to chop off the bottom 10% and rebrand the resulting monstrosity as "full HD". Samsung offered two SKUs with the same model number and apparent specs - one, sold through specialized stores, had a fancy height/tilt/etc stand. The other, sold through mass-market retailers for a few dollars less, had a much more basic stand.

One thing I will note that has changed in the LCD era is that retailers do NOT try to sell matching-brand monitor + computer bundles anymore. Back in the 1990s, there were both official and unofficial bundles - by 'official', I mean that the computer manufacturer sold the retailer a full bundle with a (inevitably-mediocre) CRT monitor as a single SKU (and sometimes even a single huge box), then 'unofficial' means a bundle that the retailer put together. Haven't seen one of those in probably well over 20 years. I guess laptops just took over that part of the market... or the presumption is that most people buying those desktops will be re-using existing monitors (which may explain why you can find a desktop with a DVI port in a store in 2023).

There's a deep irony to this - if there's anything I've learned in three decades of desktop computing, it's that you are better off spending extra money on nice peripherals like monitors/keyboard/mouse that i) will last, and ii) dramatically improve your daily experience, rather than spending that money on additional performance that you can probably upgrade to later when you actually need it or that will never matter within the lifetime of the system. And yet the mass-market retailers here basically do not sell nice peripherals.

Nice peripherals are like this weird secret that only knowledgeable old nerds know about. Just like younger folks nowadays have never seen a nice non-Mac laptop until they enter the workforce and get handed a Lenovo ThinkPad or similar.

I had an IBM 17" with a Trinitron tube. It was soooo beautiful, especially driven by a G400Max (or any other Matrox card) with that special vga cable containing 3 separate coaxial cables for RGB. I never had bigger CRT, and I don't recall my friends having that either - none of us had room for them 🤣

Wow, you guys are amazing! Thank you for all the awesome insights! OK, while we are at it, can you recommend good games besides the one that I originally listed? I need games from 2000 to 2012ish? FPS, Racing, RTS, etc.

Thanks!