theres a program called ps2 rate
but i really think thees a fault with your ps2 socket

ps: be very carefull when choosing an agp card as older agp slots used different voltages

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=t … &m=750004173631

Edit i just remembered i had this board + k62 350
best thing i ever did was to upgrade to a p3 (although the sis gfx wer'nt that bad)

the chipset was originally designed for the cyrix m2 and it was never designed to run any faster that 83mhz

Okay, here's a few updates:

-I just learned why my K6-2 system is unstable at 350 MHz, but can run at 366 MHz. Too much FSB stress(350 uses 100 MHz FSB, 366 uses 66 MHz), which is a shame given that there's PC-100 SDRAM installed. Maybe if I raise the FSB a little more, but not too much, I can get more CPU performance out of it...

-A USB mouse in the Pentium II system doesn't slow everything down like a PS/2 mouse. Unfortunately, the system will occasionally not take any updates from the mouse for no adequately explained reason, making the cursor "freeze". Not good in a heated session of Tyrian 2000, or any game that uses mouse input for that matter. The entire system doesn't freeze, though, because it'll still accept keyboard commands, joystick input, and PS/2 mouse input.

-I recently installed an ATI All-In-Wonder Radeon 8500 128 MB in that Pentium II system. It's being limited to AGP 2x because of the motherboard, but it's probably being held back even more by that 233 MHz P2. Nevertheless, I see performance gains over the Voodoo 2 in MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries, at least. Freespace 1 does not show much of a performance improvement when installed from the CD and running on the 8500, but it's silky-smooth if the FS2open port is used(not to mention looking MUCH better). Unfortunately, the game hitches whenever new objects warp in, which I believe is a fault of the hard drive...or maybe I should turn those 3D warp holes off. In any case, I certainly won't be GPU-limited in any 1990s D3D or OGL games, and I get video capture abilities to boot! (I wonder if a Pentium II 333 MHz and maybe 128 MB of SDRAM will allow it to capture and encode video fed from my Xbox reasonably well...)

-The Pentium II system's drives don't even have DMA enabled! I don't know about the disc drives, but turning it on for the hard drive made performance worse in the form of far more hitching! I don't know whether to blame the IDE/PATA controller or the hard drive yet...maybe I ought to test it on the CD drives and see if I get the performance issues again.

-That ESS sound card has digital sound compatibility with the SB Pro(which version, I don't know for sure yet), but that's it. NO FM SYNTH, for instance. It also freezes up Tyrian 2000 when trying to use it for digital sound, but every other DOS game I've tried it with uses it in SB Pro mode just fine.

-That Trident VGA card has no performance advantages or disadvantages over the SiS 530 that I can discern, so maybe the integrated graphics aren't THAT bad. But in the latter's case, upgrading beyond DirectX 7 will nullify DirectDraw acceleration, therefore making it perform like absolute crap.

-Maybe I can ditch the LAPC-I and go for the MT-32 or other external modules to free that other ISA slot for a Gravis UltraSound, and just connect the LA synth to the AWE64 Gold. The problem is, how the heck do I do that? I certainly don't have any cables that would look as if they would connect to the MT-32.

NamelessPlayer wrote:

I just learned why my K6-2 system is unstable at 350 MHz, but can run at 366 MHz. Too much FSB stress(350 uses 100 MHz FSB, 366 uses 66 MHz), which is a shame given that there's PC-100 SDRAM installed. Maybe if I raise the FSB a little more, but not too much, I can get more CPU performance out of it...

The SiS 530 also supports 75, 85 and 95 MHz FSB and various asyncronous FSB/DRAM clock combinations. Try to keep the FSB as high as possible if you want to go for max speed. However, if all the parts are rated for 100 MHz FSB, it should run stable. The asynchronous FSB/DRAM settings slow overall performance, but could help you to find out whether it's the mainboard or the RAM that's having trouble.

Most of the problems of the P2 system also seem to be caused by the mainboard. How about upgrading the mainboards on both of the systems? A decent BX chipset board and a Socket7 board with Aladdin V or MPV3 would do wonders, and could solve the shortage of ISA slots.

NamelessPlayer wrote:

That Trident VGA card has no performance advantages or disadvantages over the SiS 530 that I can discern, so maybe the integrated graphics aren't THAT bad.

Well, the Trident cards aren't known for speed. 😉 Actually the SiS 530 performance would be a lot better if it didn't run on shared memory.

NamelessPlayer wrote:

That ESS sound card has digital sound compatibility with the SB Pro(which version, I don't know for sure yet), but that's it. NO FM SYNTH, for instance. It also freezes up Tyrian 2000 when trying to use it for digital sound, but every other DOS game I've tried it with uses it in SB Pro mode just fine.

Tyrian is said to be very finicky about sound on cards emulating SB (Pro). And no FM synth is tough 😒

NamelessPlayer wrote:

Maybe I can ditch the LAPC-I and go for the MT-32 or other external modules to free that other ISA slot for a Gravis UltraSound, and just connect the LA synth to the AWE64 Gold. The problem is, how the heck do I do that? I certainly don't have any cables that would look as if they would connect to the MT-32.

Yes, a MT-32 would be easier to find and cheaper than a LAPC-I. Connecting it to a AWE64 Gold would work fine for most stuff, except some very old games that expect a real MPU-401 interface (like the ones on MPU-401AT, MPU-IPC, LAPC-I or SCC-1). The cable shouldn't be difficult to get, since it was bundled with some of the more expensive Soundblaster models.

About upgrading the motherboard, I have this little rule of thumb that says that if you ever need to replace a motherboard, chances are you might as well get an entirely new system because you'll need a new CPU, new RAM, new graphics card, etc. anyway. If I were to swap out the motherboard on one of those systems, I'd be very tempted to get something even more modern, like a Pentium III or Athlon XP mobo, or maybe I'd go all out with that 2000 US$ and buy that Core 2 Quad, 2 GB DDR2-800, GeForce 8800 GTS 640 MB, SB X-Fi system that I've always wanted. Sticking to the hardware that I have keeps that urge in check.

I should note that the K6 system is in an AT case(which is probably why the wiring is sheer hell), so that might pose problems. The P2 system, on the other hand, is housed in an ATX case, which will make things a LOT easier.

I suppose that I can swap the mobo for one that's Pentium III-compliant, since they're quite affordable compared to Athlon XP-based systems and will also likely let me use my current P2 233 MHz, though that means limiting myself to the older Slot 1 rather than the new socket they decided to use on later P3s. I think one based on the 820E, 815, 815E, or 815P chipsets will be the way to go according to this Wikipedia entry, since all of those support both P2s and P3s, have a 133 MHz FSB, use SDRAM, and have AGP 4x ports. Even better if any of them turn out to have integrated Ethernet, because both systems currently have an Ethernet card taking up one of the PCI slots. Unfortunately, I just now read that Slot 1 CPUs come in SECC and SECC2 varieties, both of which aren't exactly compatible. It may refer only to the locking mechanism, but it's bound to make things even more annoying.

...Oh, wait, the 8x0 chipsets are all Socket 370. Damn, guess I'll have to either go with a 440BX board(which apparently can run 133 MHz FSB unofficially, thus making it suitable for a higher-end P3)or one of the S370 boards that are being sold with CPUs bundled with them. To make matters worse, I just discovered that the 8x0 chipsets generally don't have ISA slots at all.

...Wait, did I just see a 440BX mobo with TWO S370s, bundled with a couple of Celeron 533s? It has an AGP slot, 4 PCI slots, 1 ISA/PCI slot, and 1 ISA slot. The listing also offers three 256 MB sticks of PC-133 SDRAM, maxing out the mobo's capacity. Think I should go for it?

...Oh, look here, a 440BX mobo with THREE ISA slots, four PCI slots, and the AGP slot! It's a single Slot 1, though.

I'm thinking of going with the dual-CPU board, even if it's short one ISA slot and I don't know of any 1990s games with multi-CPU support. However, it should make the system more responsive overall, with one CPU dedicated to a game and the other chugging away at background tasks, right?

EDIT: I just noticed that this post brings my post count right to The Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

NamelessPlayer wrote:

I'm thinking of going with the dual-CPU board, even if it's short one ISA slot and I don't know of any 1990s games with multi-CPU support. However, it should make the system more responsive overall, with one CPU dedicated to a game and the other chugging away at background tasks, right?

Depends on the operating system you use. Legacy-game-friendly operating systems like Windows 9x do not support more than one CPU. The dual-CPU board you mentioned would be perfect for a Linux server, not for a gaming machine.

BX boards are among the best choices for old games today, as they were when those games came out. And you could use most of the hardware you already have.

So Win9x won't use the other CPU...but will it still run? (There might be problems with running Win9x with the 768 MB of RAM that the mobo comes with, though...I'll supposedly have to yank out one stick and reduce the total RAM to 512 MB.)

However, I always planned for it to dual-boot between Win98SE and either Windows 2000 or Windows XP, the latter two supposedly supporting multiple CPUs.

In any case, I'm going to go for it. I'll probably also replace the Celerons with a couple of 1.4 GHz Pentium III Tualatin chips eventually, if the 440BX can handle it. It will probably mean running on the unofficially supported 133 MHz FSB, though, which could pose problems with my Radeon 8500 because the AGP timings/clock speed/whatever will be a bit off.

I got thoroughly ill of trying to sort out my own vast collection of parts quite some time ago, especailly when I started finding out that some of them had mysterious ingrained hardware faults of their own - which may very well be the cause of some of your problems.

I say, decide what you want to play and let that dictate your choice of hardware. In particular, unless you have something that really, really needs a particular ISA sound card, you might as well just dispense with ISA slots and get a nice PCI card with DOS support. (Wasn't Roland support generally dropped some time ago, such that any game that supports a Roland card would not require much of a system?)

NamelessPlayer wrote:

Unfortunately, I just now read that Slot 1 CPUs come in SECC and SECC2 varieties, both of which aren't exactly compatible. It may refer only to the locking mechanism, but it's bound to make things even more annoying.

I'm pretty sure it does only refer to the locking mechanism. In my experience it really doesn't make much of a difference; it seems like it would take quite a bit of force to shake a Slot 1 CPU out of its slot even if there was no locking mechanism at all.

NamelessPlayer wrote:

However, I always planned for it to dual-boot between Win98SE and either Windows 2000 or Windows XP, the latter two supposedly supporting multiple CPUs.

I don't get it... If you're going to be running stuff that's so intensive that mutliple CPUs will be useful, you might as well spend a little more and get one of the current systems out there (and you can get something quite decent for much, much less than $2000 these days). If you want to run old games, two CPUs will not be necessary.

There were some late 90s games that could use multi-cpu to some effect. Falcon 4's mission planner could use multithreading to process strategic elements of the randomised missions and such. This saved some time in the pre and post flight mission screens. Multi CPU is supported in NT 4.0 Workstation, 2000 Pro and XP Pro with up to 2 cores per install. P4 Hyperthreaded CPUs also work as two cores in 2000 Pro and XP Pro. Personally, I'd recommend you look for a VIA Apollo based Motherboard and get two PIII 933s if you really want to go dual CPU as this was the best multicpu consumer solution back in the day. Tyan make really nice Dual CPU motherboard's and their VIA Apollo based boards were rather spiffy and stable - look around for one of those if you can.

Well, I already committed to the deal for that 440BX-based Abit mobo with the Celerons. If only I'd checked this thread sooner...In any case, if I wanted to make use of newer apps with SMP support, rest assured that my future 2000 US$ system will include either an Intel Xeon X3210, Xeon X3220, or a Core 2 Quad Q6600, which should be more than enough CPU power. (So why haven't I bought it yet? Still waiting for the Intel X38 motherboards.) Oh, and how well does DOSBox run on a Q6600? Certainly, it would run it much better than an Athlon XP 1800+?

Anyway, Falcon 4.0 uses SMP? Awesome! That means that I can have TWO systems here worthy of running it(three when the 2000 US$ system is finally purchased), though I'll still need a couple of TM HOTAS Cougars for the ideal experience. (Not that I ever used one, but it's the closest I can get to an actual F-16 HOTAS without breaking the bank.)

Also, as for two CPUs being overkill for a legacy gaming system, I also want to run fairly newer games like Unreal Tournament that hit the CPU hard in addition to the oldies. The extra CPU should also increase overall system responsiveness and allow for better multitasking, so that I can do things like ripping a CD or archiving some files in the background while fragging away! And then there's the wonderful world of servers to look into...

dh4rm4 wrote:

Falcon 4's mission planner could use multithreading to process strategic elements of the randomised missions and such. This saved some time in the pre and post flight mission screens.

Wait, wouldn't the new release of Falcon 4 (Allied Force) be considerably superior to the old DOS version?

Jorpho wrote:

dh4rm4 wrote:

Falcon 4's mission planner could use multithreading to process strategic elements of the randomised missions and such. This saved some time in the pre and post flight mission screens.

Wait, wouldn't the new release of Falcon 4 (Allied Force) be considerably superior to the old DOS version?

First off, isn't Falcon 4.0 a Win9x game?

Second, Allied Force may be improved, but it's the original binder edition that I own, and I plan to stick with it. As to whether to use SuperPAK, FreeFalcon, Red Viper, or Open Falcon, though...hopefully, those won't be as hard on the CPU as I think they are.

EDIT: On another note, I'm learning about these "SB-Link" headers on the motherboard. Apparently, they're used for PCI sound cards that can't be seen easily in DOS apps. I wonder if a SB Live! card can utilize it, bypassing the need for a TSR...

Also, do any of the Gravis Ultrasound cards have a proper MPU-401 interface for MT-32-or-compatible usage? Not that I can even find one, but it would be nice to know beforehand. (And can a GUS and a SB use the same cable to connect to the external LA synth box?)

NamelessPlayer wrote:

First off, isn't Falcon 4.0 a Win9x game?

Oh yeah, 3.0 was the DOS one. Whoopsie. 😅

One more note-it looks like I should have done much more research, because Intel decided to do some electrical changes to Socket 370 for Coppermine CPUs(all of which use FC-PGA rather than PPGA), then even more changes for Tualatin ones(FC-PGA2 instead of the former two)! I would have expected all Socket 370 boards to accept all Socket 370 CPUs if the chipset could handle the FSB, but oh well...

I could use a socket adapter for Coppermine CPUs, but this article states that it'll only work in single-CPU mode, therefore defeating the purpose of having a dual-CPU board in the first place.

Oh well, I'll just stick to the Celerons. They probably still give the P2 333 MHz and K6-III+ 550 MHz a good spanking anyway, though they're probably still not enough for Unreal Tournament...(Did they even have 1 GHz CPUs in 1999, when that game was released? You'll need one if you're like me and demand a constant 60 FPS in this fast-paced FPS! Too bad I prefer it to the more-efficient Quake III, which actually DOES support multi-CPU systems...)

...Wait, why am I going overboard with this? All the multi-CPU apps need something like a Core 2 Quad Q6600 to run well anyway, and most 1990s games don't really need a 1 GHz pair of CPUs...now if I could just get my hands on an Intel X38 board so that I can actually have a PC that's up-to-date!

From the UT readme

Requirements

Minimum system requirement:
233 MHz Pentium MMX or AMD K6 class computer.
32 megabytes of RAM.
4 megabyte video card.

Typical system:
300 MHz Pentium II or AMD K6-3.
64 megabytes of RAM.
3dfx Voodoo 2 / Riva TNT class 3d accelerator.

Awesome system:
Pentium III 500 or AMD Athlon 550 or faster PC.
128 megabytes of RAM.
3dfx Voodoo3 / Riva TNT2 class 3D accelerator.

A pair of Celeron 300A's at 450 would be nice. Not sure how likely those Mendocinos are to go up to 500 or so tho. You don't want to be stuck at 66 MHz bus tho IMO, so get on that overclocking 🤣.

List of Intel Celeron microprocessors

The problem about overclocking these 533 MHz Celerons is that they have a high, LOCKED IN BOTH DIRECTIONS multiplier from what I understand, and I'll have to "downgrade" to the 366 MHz Mendocinos to hit 100 MHz FSB reliably(at which point they'll be running at around 555 MHz). Hopefully, those Thermaltake aftermarket HSFs that are part of the deal will be better off than stock HSFs, though they're probably not Golden Orb-grade cooling solutions. Another thing going in my favor is that Abit boards from this timeframe are generally regarded as excellent choices for overclocking enthusiasts, though the 440BX is going to need some serious cooling as well if I wanted to push it beyond 100 MHz FSB.

Oh, and about Unreal Tournament-I've read benches of it running on K6-III+ 500/500 MHz systems, as well as those with P3 500 MHz ones give-or-take, and the average FPS still turns out to be a disappointing 20-30 FPS when I want 60. (The same systems chew through Quake III with 60+ FPS easily...) On the other hand, they're using older graphics cards like the GeForce 2 in place of later cards like the Radeon 8500, so maybe UT can really take advantage of a later GPU more than I think and raise framerates to playable levels.

Taking a Celeron 366 to 555 or so is going to be very tough I think. 300A-to-450 wasn't the most popular because it was slower than a 366 to 555, it was popular because it was cheap and nearly always worked.... Even a 333 to 504 is questionable to the 250nm core. Worrying a bunch about cooling may not matter at all because these chips don't dump out that kind of heat. You'd probably have to use a Peltier and take it well below ambient temp to get results from cooling improvement.

Yeah you are best off with a Abit BF6/BE6 probably. Assuming you can find a board from those days with caps that aren't bursting. I just recently cannibalized a dead Abit BX133's caps for my BF6 because it had 3 bursting caps (the BX133 had some too). The bad cap era was long lasting too, I have a Shuttle AK31A (KT266A) that has bad caps. Boards from '98 and earlier are usually fine.....

K6-III+ 600 is still not all that great for Unreal. A Katmai P3 at the same clock will significantly beat one (I have both heh). Don't expect 60 fps from even a Katmai P3 600 tho; at least not full-time. It will drop to 30 fps often enough, with 80 fps or so being the high end. This is using Chris Donhal's OpenGL renderer and a GeForce FX 5600 at 1024x768.

Things might be a little faster using the game's D3D renderer, but I like the S3TC textures a lot and you need the new OpenGL renderer to use them unless you want to play with a Savage 4. Chris's OpenGL renderer does use a little SSE too so poor K6-III+ is not only stuck without that benefit, but also Unreal's poor 3Dnow and K6's rather sad FPU. Oh, and its crummy memory bandwidth courtesy of the crappy Super7 motherboards. And their awful AGP implementations (lol).

Just in general though, the K6 series is not the chip to use with the Unreal engine. Even with Glide and a Voodoo5, a K6-3 will not touch a P3. K6-2 is just awful.