You'll need PIII 1Ghz to maintain stable 60 fps.

Ahh, OK... I thought I might need a faster processor. Would that be for 640x480 or 800x600?

A P3-500 is really not a good fit for games after 1998 if you want 60fps. Go for at least a P3-866 and something like a GeForce 256 or above (ie. GeForce2, ATI Radeon, etc.)

A period-correct setup never targeted 60 FPS as it wasn't a priority. As others mentioned, you would need a faster CPU and at least an nVidia GeForce card to get consistent 60 FPS in older titles.

The only ones that would be giving some troubles are the games like the ones based on the first Unreal engine, where the official Direct3D and OpenGL implementations were more like an afterthought.

Thanks for the help!

What about something like a Voodoo 4500 for both Glide and OpenGL games? (or should I not be concerned about Glide and just look for a GeForce or similar?)

Alice is Quake3 engine, so GeForce2 (or GeForce256) would be nice.
Voodoo 4500 is worst bang for the buck, unless you already own one.

sofakng wrote on 2023-10-02, 13:55:

Thanks for the help!

What about something like a Voodoo 4500 for both Glide and OpenGL games? (or should I not be concerned about Glide and just look for a GeForce or similar?)

You're worried that a Voodoo 1 is too expensive, but propose the single most expensive (now) retail 3dfx card as alternative?

If you happen to have one, by all means use it. If not, er... look up how much they go for these days.

Probably a Voodoo3 is the cheapest way to do GLide on bare metal and even a V3-2000 is powerful enough to give decent period-correct (i.e. not 60fps) in combination with a late 1999, early 2000 CPU. That P3-500 is early 1999 and in 1999 things were moving so fast that that makes a big difference.

dionb wrote on 2023-10-02, 14:04:

Probably a Voodoo3 is the cheapest way to do GLide on bare metal and even a V3-2000 is powerful enough to give decent period-correct (i.e. not 60fps) in combination with a late 1999, early 2000 CPU. That P3-500 is early 1999 and in 1999 things were moving so fast that that makes a big difference.

This. Higher clocked P3 + V3.
And you can always do nGlide with FX series ol later.

That is a very loaded question OP, and for a satisfactory answer you need to provide more details, but I will try to answer regardless:

- Are you targeting period-correctness or performance?

If you're targeting period correct hardware, then the Best builds you can have are Athlon 1200 + VIA KT133A chipset board or a Pentium 4 1500 + Intel i850 chipset board. These should be paired up with either a Geforce 256 DDR or a Radeon DDR.

The problem is, games of that era have.... dubious system requirements. For most games, minimum system requirements means what you need to launch the game - it doesn't mean it will be playable or enjoyable. Good examples of this are Dungeon Keeper 2 and Homeworld, both released in 1999. These games will however run well on the above configurations, but playability and enjoyability depend heavily on what resolutions, detail levels and the actual level of the game you are playing. 800x600 is generally OK for DK2, while 1024x768 32bit is ok for Homeworld, alltough there are situations ingame when framerates will sit under 30 FPS (last 4-5 DK2 levels, My pet dungeon, Gardens of Kadeshi level of Homeworld). The games you listed on the other hand should run perfectly smooth on these two setups, provided you do not exceed 1280x1024 resolution.

If you're looking for enjoyability, and as such performance, then you need to build a faster PC. Athlon XP 2600+ / Pentium 4 2800 Northwood are the minimum requirements for smooth gameplay across all levels in these 2 games. Pair these with either a Geforce 4 Ti 4200 or a Radeon 9500 and 1600x1200 32bit @ 60FPS is achievable. The games you listed will run great even on a Geforce 3 Ti / Radeon 8500 @ 1600x1200.

- Do you plan to use a CRT or an LCD monitor?

1998-2000 era 3d games look quite smart on an LCD monitor, provided you play at the panel's native resolution - 1280x1024 for 19" and 1600x1200 for 20 or 21" LCDs. On a CRT monitor even 640x480 looks quite good in my eyes, and for that resolution even your current build will suffice, provided you install a sufficiently fast video card (Geforce 256 SDR, Radeon SDR, Geforce 2 MX, Radeon 7000). I excluded 3dfx cards because in my experience a Voodoo 3 3000 was only able to provide an enjoyable experience in these games at 640x480 (particularly UT99 and Alice).

If you're using an LCD monitor, especially a 20-21" 1600x1200, then you'll want a Geforce 4 Ti4200 or a Radeon 9500/9700. Out of the two I prefer the ATi alternative for it's superior image quality, lack of driver "performance tricks" and excelent DVI support.

- What kind of money are you willing to spend?

If you want period correct and top end hardware, it will cost you. If you just want to be practical, then any Socket A or 478 DDR motherboard with a fast CPU, even socket 754/939 and LGA 775 (Intel 865/VIA KT800 only) boards with AGP are great budget options. Mostly any 754/939 CPU will work well for these games, same for most single core LGA775 CPUs.

As for video cards, the Radeon 9550/9600 are an excellent alternative to the aforementioned video cards. They are very cheap, quite fast and easy to source - the only downside to the 9600 and 9550 is the fact that most cards are AGP 8x (0.8V signaling) only, and will likely not work in some universal AGP motherboards (potential magic smoke danger) and will not physically fit in AGP 2x motherboards (keyed different), so keep this in mind.

Thank you so much for that detailed response! It also helped me think about what I actually want or was trying to ask.

I want the best performance and cost but don't care too much about period accuracy. However, I want to play the games as intended and accurate as possible without any hacks or fan patches.

For example, I've heard that Unreal is best (??) with Glide. I know there are wrappers (nGlide, etc) but how accurate are they?

I'd love the option to play at 1600x1200 with 60 fps (if possible) but not if that sacrifices accuracy or completely changes how the game looks... if that makes sense?

I'm planning to play on a CRT (Nokia 445ZA, 1600x1200@88 Hz max) but might use an LCD or upscaler (OSSC). I like to have different options to experience things period-accurate (ie. 640x480) but then also higher resolution, etc.

3dfx anything will be stupid expensive. GF2 MX is period correct and sell for $5-10.

For that time frame '96 - 2000 you are looking at the higher end PIII.
The PIII 1GHz would come in late '99 into 2000 while the 733 to 933 could be '96 onwards.
Graphics would be a GeForce 256 or original Radeon and Voodoo & Voodoo 2. to keep it period correct that is.

Running the games mentioned I wouldnt know if they will. Im not much of a gamer.

rasz_pl wrote on 2023-10-02, 14:58:

3dfx anything will be stupid expensive. GF2 MX is period correct and sell for $5-10.

Thanks ... I think that might be the way I want to go, but what about glide games like Unreal? I've been searching and I see a lot of people saying it looks 'better' on Glide or games having effects on appearing on Glide?

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-10-02, 14:59:

For that time frame '96 - 2000 you are looking at the higher end PIII.

Thanks but see above ... I'm not too concerned about period-accuracy but rather video/sound accuracy...

Well, best UT/UT99 experience is with Glide and A3D 😀.
nGlide is actually very good, and is no brainer with 1600x1200. But that means a more powerful CPU (higher end Athlon XP / Athlon64) and maybe Windows XP, depending on other hardware you find.
I use s754 Clawhammer on VIA K8T800 with GeForce 6800. (FX5900XT is a bit anemic at higher resolutions).

Sorry, what's A3D?

...and would a Voodoo 3 be capable with 800x600 at 60 fps with a better CPU? I don't think I want to spend the money on a Voodoo 4500 or 5000.

I'm still learning but maybe a Voodoo 3 + ATI 9700? (I can swap them out and then have true Glide support and super fast Glide wrapper?)

sofakng wrote on 2023-10-02, 14:45:

Thank you so much for that detailed response! It also helped me think about what I actually want or was trying to ask.

I want the best performance and cost but don't care too much about period accuracy. However, I want to play the games as intended and accurate as possible without any hacks or fan patches.

Then a socket 754 or 939 or LGA775 system with AGP is the way to go. Cheap, readily available, fast, stable, modern power supply friendly. For LGA775 find an Intel i865 or VIA PT800 or PT880 chipset motherboard with AGP, and pair it with any single core pentium 4 or fast Celeron. On 754/939 any athlon 64 will do just fine. For video the aforementioned Radeon 9550/9600XT or PRO will do great.

sofakng wrote on 2023-10-02, 14:45:

For example, I've heard that Unreal is best (??) with Glide. I know there are wrappers (nGlide, etc) but how accurate are they?

First time hearing this. Unreal supports Direct3D, Glide and OpenGL. I've always played Unreal and UT99 on Direct3D capable Video cards. I tried glide on Voodoo 2 and 3 cards, and there is no visual advantage. There is however a performance advantage when using slower CPUs, at least in Unreal Gold.

I did see a difference in visuals (a positive one) a while ago when messing around with S3's API and the Savage series. It looks a bit better then D3D or Glide to my eyes.

sofakng wrote on 2023-10-02, 14:45:

I'd love the option to play at 1600x1200 with 60 fps (if possible) but not if that sacrifices accuracy or completely changes how the game looks... if that makes sense?

I'm planning to play on a CRT (Nokia 445ZA, 1600x1200@88 Hz max) but might use an LCD or upscaler (OSSC). I like to have different options to experience things period-accurate (ie. 640x480) but then also higher resolution, etc.

1600x1200 will make most 1997-1999 3d hardware accelerated games look much better - Unreal is a prime example - BUT I found this is only true when using an LCD monitor, particularly over DVI. When it comes to hardware accelerated 3D games I find resolution does not impact "accuracy". Software rendering on the other hand does tend to look better (to my eyes) at lower resolutions, but only on CRT monitors. At anything under native resolution on an LCD everything looks worse - stretched, doubled pixels, blurry (again my opinion).

Since you're using a CRT you don't have to worry about any of this, and frankly 1600x1200 is overkill. Compared to lower resolutions the image might be dimmer and less focused at 1600x120 - but your nokia is a 21" CRT, so the higher resolution might be an improvement. Personally I play @ 1280x960 on my 21" Dell CRT - I find that resolution looks best in most 3D hardware accelerated games.

sofakng wrote on 2023-10-02, 15:23:

Sorry, what's A3D?

This is Glide in the audio world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureal_Semiconductor
Just as 3dfx Interactive was bought by Nvidia and put on the shelf, Creative bought Aureal and destroyed its competitor.
In general, they have a lot in common.

sofakng wrote on 2023-10-02, 15:01:

Thanks ... I think that might be the way I want to go, but what about glide games like Unreal? I've been searching and I see a lot of people saying it looks 'better' on Glide or games having effects on appearing on Glide?

See here: List of Windows games which look best when using 3DFX Glide

For stable 60+ FPS in Unreal, you need a faster CPU, regardless of the resolution. As others have mentioned above, at least a 1 GHz Pentium 3 is recommended.

I'm still learning but maybe a Voodoo 3 + ATI 9700? (I can swap them out and then have true Glide support and super fast Glide wrapper?)

Radeon cards are great performers, but they lack certain legacy features like table fog and paletted textures. The absence of those features can make some older games look slightly worse. While this isn't a huge deal, I'm mentioning it because you specifically said that you want good accuracy.

sofakng wrote on 2023-10-02, 15:01:

rasz_pl wrote on 2023-10-02, 14:58:

3dfx anything will be stupid expensive. GF2 MX is period correct and sell for $5-10.

Thanks ... I think that might be the way I want to go, but what about glide games like Unreal? I've been searching and I see a lot of people saying it looks 'better' on Glide or games having effects on appearing on Glide?

unreal is a non issue Re: List of Windows games which look better when using 3DFX Glide (compared to Direct3D and OpenGL) some minor differences on stock unpatched game, disappear after patching.
yes, if you want glide for a couple of games listen in that thread pay >$200 or whatever V3 3000 costs nowadays. This reminds me I need to cash out my V3 3000 😀
If you want to play games you listed at highest quality just install them on your current Windows10 computer, all run fine maxed out on modern systems.