A bit late for the party. 😅 Others have already provided many excellent opinions, so here's my two cents after reading the following paragraphs from the thread starter:

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-15, 09:47:

The thing I am mostly interested in is Win 98 gaming at the moment. So I will focus on windows 98 rig only before things are getting to complicated.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-16, 17:24:

I am into vast array of games. Want to play Real time strategy games, like Age of Empires, Warcraft 2, 3, Dune 2000 for example,) some racing games like the Need for Speed, Bleißfuß (I think in the English-speaking world the series is called screamer or something like that) I believe ), fps games ( Quake 2, Quake Arena, Half Life, HL Oposing Force, Blue Shift), Thief 1, 2, Deus Ex, System Shock2 and also curious about trying out the console ports of Resident Evil. Just RE 2 and Re 3 though and Dino Crisis too.

Looks like we've got many favorite games in common. 😸 With the exception of Warcraft 2, those were Win9x games with most of them required a decent GPU for fullest game experience, so I'd say focus on mid- to late-Win9x games instead of DOS ones (you could still run most of them under DOS mode). IMHO a budget system 3-5 years later than your games would probably give you better experience than a "period correct" premium system. Therefore I'd suggest a 2004-5 system that could support Win9x.

Premium choices if you're willing to spend some money:

MB: Socket 939 with AGP 8X and dual-channel memory support; be sure to check if the chipet supports Win9x [1]
CPU: Athlon64 with 90 nm lithography and SSE3 support [1]
RAM: 2 x 256 MB DDR400 [2]
GPU: GF4 Ti or Radeon R300 (9700, 9500, or 9800 series) [3]
Sound: Creative SB Audigy (EAX) or Aureal Vortex 2 [4]
HDD: Any working 7200 rpm model with IDE interface [5] and LESS than 120 GB capacity [6]
ODD: Any working CD-RW with IDE interface [5]

Notes:
[1] 90 nm, AGP 8X, and DDR marked the last combinations of Win9x system. Sure, there are methods to run Win9x on 65 nm, PCIe graphics, and DDR2, but they usually require hacking and workarounds. For starters, compatibility outweighs performance. Contemporary Pentium 4 with NetBurst structure had a poor reputation due to high energy consumption with minimal performance advantages.
[2] Native Win9x don't like more than 512 MB RAM; sure there are workarounds but few games need that much RAM anyway.
[3] Like many have said, GF4 Ti was the last batch of Nvidia chips with Win9x in mind, with more features than ATI competitors while cooler than GF5/FX . Radeon R300 had less features but still more efficient than GF5/FX.
[4] Choose your pick with what your games support.
[5] Win9x had rather rudimentary SATA support while IDE support was mature and built-in.
[6] Win9x and some BIOS have the 128 Gib / 137 GB limitations; avoid this hassle as Win9x rarely need that much capacity anyway.

Alternatively, you can pick budget choices in order to save both money and time (for being easier to find in used markets):

MB: Any MB with Socket 939 or 754 and AGP 8X; P4 boards are acceptable if you can have one for free
CPU: Any with 90 nm lithography that your MB supports
RAM: As long as they add up to 256 or 512 MB
GPU: GF3 Ti, Radeon R200 or RV300
Sound: Creative SB Live!
HDD and ODD: Same as above

This combination should reduce the price while increase availability significantly.

If, by any chance, that you really want native DOS gaming, you might need something like this:

MB: Socket 370 with Intel or VIA chipset; support for Tualatin CPU would be a bonus
CPU: P3 Coppermine or Tualatin with 1 GHz or more
RAM: SDRAM 256 or 512 MB
GPU: GF3 Ti, Radeon R200 or RV200 (as AGP 8X was not yet available)
Sound: Creative SB AWE32 or AWE64 (check this thread for more details)
HDD and ODD: Same as above

Just remember that this build might have some difficulties with late 2000's games.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-05-20, 20:14:

GeForce 4 Ti can emulate Glide more or less feature correct (not with 1-to-1 accuracy). It has some issues with overall image quality though, but that's general problem of all old GeForce cards.

I see. Thanks for the info. I never had the chance to experience a real 3dfx card in action so 1 to accuracy is not a must. As long as there no real bad glitches I would probably not notice some minor inaccuracies.

@Socket370 and Dormcat Thanks a lot for your great advice.

Socket3 wrote on 2023-05-20, 23:38:

That's actually a pretty hard question OP. The BEST 97-2000 gaming PC in my opinion would be something like this: […]
Show full quote

That's actually a pretty hard question OP. The BEST 97-2000 gaming PC in my opinion would be something like this:

Athlon XP 2800+ / P4 2.8GHz
VIA KT400A/KT600/KT880 for AMD and Intel i865/i875 chipsets for intel
256Mb DDR400
Geforce 4 Titanium 4200 (the 4600's seem unreliable - all 5 of my cards started artefacting)
2x Voodoo 2 SLi
Aureal Vortex 2 or Yamaha DS-XG (YMF724) for Windows audio

But... some of these parts can be rater hard to track down (pair of matching Voodoo 2 cards + SLi cable for example) and quite expensive. Also rather unnecessary. For example - Glide support for games is nice, but only a very few games of that time require Glide, the rest are very happy with openGL or Direct3D, so those two Voodoo 2 cards are more of a luxury then anything else. Plus there's Glide wrappers like dgVoodoo. A bit of a pain to set up, won't work with every game, but are free. That geforce 4 titanium is fast, and great to have, but a Radeon 9600XT performs slightly better, has direct X 9 support (not that it matters for games of that era) and costs a lot less.

In essence, if you want something that just works, you can pick up any Athlon/Athlon XP/Athlon 64 with AGP or fast pentium 3 (at least 1GHz) / pentium 4 (even LGA775) with AGP, get a Radeon 9600XT or even a Geforce FX5700 (just not the 5700LE), a Yamaha 724 and build a great inexpensive retro PC. Just stay away from nvidia chipsets when using windows 98 - they have win9x drivers but over the years I found them to be pretty finicky and unstable under anything other then windows XP.

Another piece of advice - don't bother with CF-IDE, SD-IDE or SATA SSDs with SATA to IDE adapters. If you pick up a motherboard that only has IDE, get an IDE hard disk drive. If you have SATA, any SATA3 SSD should do - just be mindful that some SATA1 boards have compatibility issues with SATA3 devices. Adapters and converters are often a pain to set up and are not 100% stable on every motherboard, where as a new old stock IDE HDD can be had on ebay for a fair price and it just works.

Good luck!

CF-IDE adapters are fine, the trick is to use them with industrial cards that have much higher endurance and can identify as a fixed disk (and not from amazon). Compact flash uses the same IDE standard/protocol as an IDE HDD. The advantage you get is zero seek time, like a SSD gives you today.

Most consumer cards are incapable of doing so and use lower quality chips so you get problems.

gen_angry wrote on 2023-05-21, 09:50:

Socket3 wrote on 2023-05-20, 23:38:

That's actually a pretty hard question OP. The BEST 97-2000 gaming PC in my opinion would be something like this: […]
Show full quote

That's actually a pretty hard question OP. The BEST 97-2000 gaming PC in my opinion would be something like this:

Athlon XP 2800+ / P4 2.8GHz
VIA KT400A/KT600/KT880 for AMD and Intel i865/i875 chipsets for intel
256Mb DDR400
Geforce 4 Titanium 4200 (the 4600's seem unreliable - all 5 of my cards started artefacting)
2x Voodoo 2 SLi
Aureal Vortex 2 or Yamaha DS-XG (YMF724) for Windows audio

But... some of these parts can be rater hard to track down (pair of matching Voodoo 2 cards + SLi cable for example) and quite expensive. Also rather unnecessary. For example - Glide support for games is nice, but only a very few games of that time require Glide, the rest are very happy with openGL or Direct3D, so those two Voodoo 2 cards are more of a luxury then anything else. Plus there's Glide wrappers like dgVoodoo. A bit of a pain to set up, won't work with every game, but are free. That geforce 4 titanium is fast, and great to have, but a Radeon 9600XT performs slightly better, has direct X 9 support (not that it matters for games of that era) and costs a lot less.

In essence, if you want something that just works, you can pick up any Athlon/Athlon XP/Athlon 64 with AGP or fast pentium 3 (at least 1GHz) / pentium 4 (even LGA775) with AGP, get a Radeon 9600XT or even a Geforce FX5700 (just not the 5700LE), a Yamaha 724 and build a great inexpensive retro PC. Just stay away from nvidia chipsets when using windows 98 - they have win9x drivers but over the years I found them to be pretty finicky and unstable under anything other then windows XP.

Another piece of advice - don't bother with CF-IDE, SD-IDE or SATA SSDs with SATA to IDE adapters. If you pick up a motherboard that only has IDE, get an IDE hard disk drive. If you have SATA, any SATA3 SSD should do - just be mindful that some SATA1 boards have compatibility issues with SATA3 devices. Adapters and converters are often a pain to set up and are not 100% stable on every motherboard, where as a new old stock IDE HDD can be had on ebay for a fair price and it just works.

Good luck!

CF-IDE adapters are fine, the trick is to use them with industrial cards that have much higher endurance and can identify as a fixed disk (and not from amazon). Compact flash uses the same IDE standard/protocol as an IDE HDD. The advantage you get is zero seek time, like a SSD gives you today.

Most consumer cards are incapable of doing so and use lower quality chips so you get problems.

It's not the cards themselves - sure, you have a point, you can't expect a consumer card to perform like a hard drive, it's not designed for that - but endurance is not what I was talking about. Some motherboards simply will not work with CF/SD or SDD's. Either at all (not detecting or not booting off the drive) or display read / write errors, hanging, freezing or stuttering. And that's half of my experience so far.

Yes, there are boards that work perfectly fine with these solid state storage solutions, but out of 10 computers of various periods I've tried such a solution on, it only worked reliably - if at all - on half of them.

One thing I did have success with is industrial DOMs (disk on modules). In my experience these worked reliably with most of my hardware and were correctly detected by everything I installed them in, from 386 machines all the way up to core 2 duo rigs - but they also occasionally present micro-freezing and stuttering on some PCs when loading or moving data.

As such from my point of view solid state storage is more trouble than it's worth, especially considering you can still get IDE disk drives NOS. Sure, only larger drives - 20gb and up, so solid state storage has become obligatory for some users, since you really can't expect a 25-30yo hard disk drive to be shipped around the world and still work when it gets to you, and older PCs have disk size limitations - but for a computer that relates to this thread (pentium 3 and up) you could easily find an 80GB NOS HDD on fleabay or even rip an IDE drive from a random PC you find in the local classifieds. If it has a beige case, odds are it has an IDE disk drive inside.

Socket3 wrote on 2023-05-21, 11:04:

It's not the cards themselves - sure, you have a point, you can't expect a consumer card to perform like a hard drive, it's not designed for that - but endurance is not what I was talking about. Some motherboards simply will not work with CF/SD or SDD's. Either at all (not detecting or not booting off the drive) or display read / write errors, hanging, freezing or stuttering. And that's half of my experience so far.

Yes, there are boards that work perfectly fine with these solid state storage solutions, but out of 10 computers of various periods I've tried such a solution on, it only worked reliably - if at all - on half of them.

Yeah, I concur. I've seen all kinds of weird behavior with SD to IDE adapters. The most common are disk access inconsistency (now you see the disk, now you don't), or very poor performance on certain platforms, but I also saw even stranger issues on some very old motherboards (on a particular 486 machine that I tested a few years ago, the SD to IDE adapter, when used with a certain VLB I/O controller, actually caused screen artifacts!)

CF cards (and their adapters) tend to be much more stable, reliable and fast, but not perfect either and if you test enough motherboards... you will definitely run into an issue at some point.

Having said that, SSDs generally work very well on more modern motherboards (either natively, or by using a SATA to IDE adapter when used on VIA chipsets that don't support SATA2+ drives). I myself have a 120GB Kingston SSD + SATA to IDE adapter in my go-to Win98 retro PC (Asus A7V600-X / VIA KT600), and it's been running flawlessly for many years (it's both fast and very reliable - did not run into a single issue with this build).

Thanks about the info about the different saving media like CF cards. It is always nice to learn about more about them.

Unfortunately I am at square one again with my search. The seller of the D865GBF backed down and I need to start my search for the mobo and the cpu again 🙁. I got my money back so no harm was done here.

I am now looking into some motherboards with via chipset like recommended.

Concerning the cpu I am checking out the athlon xps, athlon 64 and as plan B I am also looking some fast Pentium 3. Coppermine and Tualatin go more for a premium compared to the athlons.

The Tualatin would be the "best" P3 you can get right?

For Sound cards I am looking the creative soundblasters or the Audigy soundblaster cards.

I am also checking out some Yamahama cards which have been recomended here as well.

There is also the chance I still might have old sound card with me. When checking out some of my old cd roms I found the istalation disk of the Creative Soundblaster 5.1. I need to check my spare parts if I still have the sound card. I should just still have because normally when I get rid of old stuff I give the system disc away as well.

In case I still have it and it is still working I could save some money for a "new sound card. I think a soundblaster 5.1 would be decent card ?

Gpu wise I am looking the geforce 2 but also into the radeon 8000 or 9000 series

I ruled out the radeon cards first due the missing legacy features but price wise some of the radeon cards are to attractive to ignore.

I also still might be lucky at some point in the future to get a "bargain" for Vodoo 2. In that case I could use the 3dfx cards for playing games with these legacy features?

I believe a Vodoo 2 supports pallated textures and table fog right?

My list fo potential parts has became really big but at least I have a plan now where to start.

Thanks again for your help guys. Without you it would have taken much longer to finish this list.

Sorry for the double post. In case it is not permitted sorry in advance. Got another question about the vodoo 2 matter. It seems that from time to time the vodoo banshee can be obtained at a cheaper price than the Vodoo 2. Would be the Banshee a good V2 substitute as second card for a system with Gf4 4200 ti or R200 or RV 300 system as a main card? I know that the banshee is technically not as competent as the V2 but with GF 4 or a Radeon it does not really mater. The card would only be used for some of the glide only games.

Would be the Banshee enough for that task or should I keep looking for a good offer for the V2 8mb or V2 12mb model?

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-22, 06:48:

The Tualatin would be the "best" P3 you can get right?

Yes, and you'll need a corresponding motherboard that supports Tualatin CPU (usually marked with BLUE Socket 370 instead of common white ones; be sure to check its CPU support list before purchasing).

Tualatin P3 and MB that support it (especially those with ISA slot and fully supported by a live-and-kicking company, such as Gigabyte GA-6VTXE-A or MSI 694T Pro; they are the ultimate rig that could span from DOS, Win9x, to WinXP) are highly sought after by retro hobbyists, so be prepared to pay if you really want one.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-22, 06:48:

For Sound cards I am looking the creative soundblasters or the Audigy soundblaster cards.

Em, Audigy is a product line of Sound Blaster, which in turn is the brand name of sound cards by Creative Technology Ltd.

Debuted in 1998, Sound Blaster Live! was the first PCI-based sound cards by Creative; it was succeeded by Sound Blaster Audigy in 2001.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-22, 06:48:

I am also checking out some Yamahama cards which have been recomended here as well.

Yamaha's OPL2/YMF3812 and OPL3/YMF262 were THE standard of DOS gaming, but their cards don't have EAX support, which would make a huge difference with your "Warren Spector's school of immersive FPS" (Thief, SS2, Deus Ex).

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-22, 06:48:

In case I still have it and it is still working I could save some money for a "new sound card. I think a soundblaster 5.1 would be decent card ?

I assume your card is a Live! 5.1, which would fit late Win9x to early WinXP games perfectly, including all games in your favorite list.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-22, 06:48:

Gpu wise I am looking the geforce 2 but also into the radeon 8000 or 9000 series

GF2 (excluding MX) were good for Win9x but a bit inadequate for late WinXP games. Pick a GF4 or GF3 Ti if you can, unless you can have a non-MX GF2 for free or very low price.

theiceman085 wrote on 2023-05-22, 06:48:

Would be the Banshee a good V2 substitute as second card for a system with Gf4 4200 ti or R200 or RV 300 system as a main card? I know that the banshee is technically not as competent as the V2 but with GF 4 or a Radeon it does not really mater. The card would only be used for some of the glide only games.

Unlike Voodoo2, which is an add-on card and must work with an existing (main) video card, Banshee is a standalone card that can't compete with GF4 or R300 under DirectX or OpenGL. You have to physically swap your video cards if you want to enjoy Glide games with a Banshee. If you don't mind the hassle, grab a Voodoo3 card instead then.

@Dormcat Thanks again for your detailed answer.

@Banshee Was not aware that the Banshee is not an ad one card. In that case, it is not very useful for me. Swapping the cards all the time does not sound like fun to me. In that case, I will just wait for an opportunity to snatch a v2. Or if that's not possible I have to resort for other ways of playing glide games like using a glide wrapper.

About the gpu thx for the tip as well. GF 3 or GF 4 Ti sounds like a better idea indeed I will do that .

@Soundcard EAX is something I want to experience for sure so the Yamaha card is out of the question.

I have not found the sound blaster card yet but I found the original receipt. It is indeed a Creative Labs SB live Player 5.1. As far as I can remember it was a good card. Got it together with my real gaming pc.

it is a pity that I do not have anything left besides the sound card maybe. A intel D850GBC, with a p4 1,5 GHZ and an Asus V7100pro could also come in handy as a retro rig.

Almost everything is gone though and I have to start over again but that's fun as well to build everything from scratch again.

@Pentium 3 I will be careful to find a right motherboard that supports Tualatin in case I should go for the P3 route.

dormcat wrote on 2023-05-22, 09:54:

[...]they are the ultimate rig that could span from DOS, Win9x, to WinXP) are highly sought after by retro hobbyists, so be prepared to pay if you really want one.

I STRONGLY disagree that they are the "ultimate rig" as a "do-it-all" machine, for someone who simply wants to play DOS + Win98 games (and has no interest in actually collecting them).
When it comes to just playing games, the Tualatins are not even in my top 5. I do agree that a Tualatin platform is very solid for Win98 (albeit, too expensive and there are better options out there), and an OK-ish platform for DOS (with very poor speed flexibility). But, the harsh truth is that a good Athlon XP/VIA platform (which I can still buy for $20 in my country) simply demolishes the capabilities of a Tualatin build in every possible way. 😀

bloodem wrote on 2023-05-22, 11:48:

I STRONGLY disagree that they are the "ultimate rig" as a "do-it-all" machine, for someone who simply wants to play DOS + Win98 games (and has no interest in actually collecting them).
When it comes to just playing games, the Tualatins are not even in my top 5. I do agree that a Tualatin platform is very solid for Win98 (albeit, too expensive and there are better options out there), and an OK-ish platform for DOS (with very poor speed flexibility). But, the harsh truth is that a good Athlon XP/VIA platform (which I can still buy for $20 in my country) simply demolishes the capabilities of a Tualatin build in every possible way. 😀

Ah, allow me to rephrase it: the ultimate rig AMONG "do-it-all" machines that spanning THREE eras (DOS + Win9x + WinXP). 😉 For the record, any "do-it-all" machine has lots of compromises (some of them might be very uncomfortable ones) and is a jack of all trades but a master of none.

It's a build when you MUST squeeze a decade (roughly 1992-2002) into a single computer; splitting it into two or more computers would result in much better experiences. Heck, I have four retro rigs for different periods of gaming. For DOS + Win9x any (Super) Socket 7 build would be more flexible in speed adjustment, while an AthlonXP or Athlon64 would perform much better as a Win9x + WinXP hybrid.

A good analogy is photographic lenses: a "travel zoom" is very convenient but comes with compromised optical quality; best optics can only be found in "Holy Trinity" zooms or prime lenses.

dormcat wrote on 2023-05-22, 12:46:

Ah, allow me to rephrase it: the ultimate rig AMONG "do-it-all" machines that spanning THREE eras (DOS + Win9x + WinXP). :wink: […]
Show full quote

bloodem wrote on 2023-05-22, 11:48:

I STRONGLY disagree that they are the "ultimate rig" as a "do-it-all" machine, for someone who simply wants to play DOS + Win98 games (and has no interest in actually collecting them).
When it comes to just playing games, the Tualatins are not even in my top 5. I do agree that a Tualatin platform is very solid for Win98 (albeit, too expensive and there are better options out there), and an OK-ish platform for DOS (with very poor speed flexibility). But, the harsh truth is that a good Athlon XP/VIA platform (which I can still buy for $20 in my country) simply demolishes the capabilities of a Tualatin build in every possible way. 😀

Ah, allow me to rephrase it: the ultimate rig AMONG "do-it-all" machines that spanning THREE eras (DOS + Win9x + WinXP). 😉 For the record, any "do-it-all" machine has lots of compromises (some of them might be very uncomfortable ones) and is a jack of all trades but a master of none.

It's a build when you MUST squeeze a decade (roughly 1992-2002) into a single computer; splitting it into two or more computers would result in much better experiences. Heck, I have four retro rigs for different periods of gaming. For DOS + Win9x any (Super) Socket 7 build would be more flexible in speed adjustment, while an AthlonXP or Athlon64 would perform much better as a Win9x + WinXP hybrid.

A good analogy is photographic lenses: a "travel zoom" is very convenient but comes with compromised optical quality; best optics can only be found in "Holy Trinity" zooms or prime lenses.

That's very interesting discussion between you and bloodem. It is really intriguing to listen to you guys. I think it is not that easy to get a jack off all tradeas machine for windows 98 and dos. The most fail save mehod would be get just win98 rig and than build anoher does only rig.

As a beginner in building retro pcs that would be too much. For me it would be interesting to have a machine that can do both to fully enjoy win 98 gaming and get a bit familiar with Does gaming in case that is possible.

If things get out of hand concerning the compability I might step down a bit and just focus on a win 98 machine. But I need to do some further research.

got plenty of information about that topic already i have to go through in detail.

dormcat wrote on 2023-05-22, 12:46:

Ah, allow me to rephrase it: the ultimate rig AMONG "do-it-all" machines that spanning THREE eras (DOS + Win9x + WinXP). 😉 For the record, any "do-it-all" machine has lots of compromises (some of them might be very uncomfortable ones) and is a jack of all trades but a master of none.

Yes, all "do-it-all" PCs come with some compromises. The problem with the Tualatin builds is that they come with A LOT of compromises, like the total lack of speed flexibility, which means that you will have a hard time running certain games, and I'm not just talking about older DOS games. You will find that even games like Tomb Raider with the Voodoo patch can fail to launch (not just with a Voodoo 1, but even when using a Voodoo 2 with the correct environment variables). Same goes for games like POD. And on top of that, if you're a person who simply wants to play games, it does not make sense to pay the "collector's price" for something that isn't special at all in terms of functionality, it's just special for its "historical end-of-an-era value".

dormcat wrote on 2023-05-22, 12:46:

It's a build when you MUST squeeze a decade (roughly 1992-2002) into a single computer; splitting it into two or more computers would result in much better experiences. Heck, I have four retro rigs for different periods of gaming. A good analogy is photographic lenses: a "travel zoom" is very convenient but comes with compromised optical quality; best optics can only be found in "Holy Trinity" zooms or prime lenses.

At this point, I have 27 x fully built PCs that span 4 decades and have tested hundreds of platforms in the past years, and yet I still pick the Athlon XP build every time I just want to easily play games without any hassle. Yes, even when I want to play DOS games, this build is less problematic than many actual 386 or 486 builds (ask me how I know).

Regarding your lens analogy, it's funny because I've also been a photographer for 15+ years. In your own analogy you are acknowledging that zoom lenses aren't necessarily bad and that certain zooms are better than others, which is basically what I'm saying. 😀
And, to continue the analogy, primes are great in a studio or controlled environment, but when out in the field... a good, fast zoom lens can mean the difference between capturing the shot (and having the correct/more appropriate composition, making your job easier in post), or missing it entirely.

So, to address the elephant in the room that is rarely mentioned: yes, even period correct builds constitute a BIG compromise. Sometimes you will find that, with certain 'period correct' systems, you can end up spending more time debugging than actually playing and enjoying games. It doesn't happen always, but it does happen and it can be very frustrating.

bloodem wrote on 2023-05-22, 14:02:

At this point, I have 27 x fully built PCs that span 4 decades and have tested hundreds of platforms in the past years, and yet I still pick the Athlon XP build every time I just want to easily play games without any hassle. Yes, even when I want to play DOS games, this build is less problematic than many actual 386 or 486 builds (ask me how I know).

Can confirm. I have used my AthlonXP rig as a multi purpose DOS/Win9x/Win2K system in the past, and it worked great. With utilities like Throttle and being able to lower the CPU multiplier to 5x, it's extremely flexible in terms of speed. I have since converted that system to a Win9x Glide + A3D 2.0 rig, but that's mostly because I have more retro PCs at my disposal now.

The few caveats which I have with the AthlonXP platform are its somewhat picky PSU requirements (higher tier CPUs need plenty of amps on the 5V rail) and the reliance on old coolers. For those reasons, I mostly use my Athlon64 system for Win9x gaming now, which happily runs on a modern day PSU and can even take the latest Ryzen coolers without any issues. Basically, it's a low noise and low heat rig, which I can't exactly say for my AthlonXP system.

bloodem wrote on 2023-05-22, 14:02:

Yes, all "do-it-all" PCs come with some compromises. The problem with the Tualatin builds is that they come with A LOT of compro […]
Show full quote

dormcat wrote on 2023-05-22, 12:46:

Ah, allow me to rephrase it: the ultimate rig AMONG "do-it-all" machines that spanning THREE eras (DOS + Win9x + WinXP). 😉 For the record, any "do-it-all" machine has lots of compromises (some of them might be very uncomfortable ones) and is a jack of all trades but a master of none.

Yes, all "do-it-all" PCs come with some compromises. The problem with the Tualatin builds is that they come with A LOT of compromises, like the total lack of speed flexibility, which means that you will have a hard time running certain games, and I'm not just talking about older DOS games. You will find that even games like Tomb Raider with the Voodoo patch can fail to launch (not just with a Voodoo 1, but even when using a Voodoo 2 with the correct environment variables). Same goes for games like POD. And on top of that, if you're a person who simply wants to play games, it does not make sense to pay the "collector's price" for something that isn't special at all in terms of functionality, it's just special for its "historical end-of-an-era value".

dormcat wrote on 2023-05-22, 12:46:

It's a build when you MUST squeeze a decade (roughly 1992-2002) into a single computer; splitting it into two or more computers would result in much better experiences. Heck, I have four retro rigs for different periods of gaming. A good analogy is photographic lenses: a "travel zoom" is very convenient but comes with compromised optical quality; best optics can only be found in "Holy Trinity" zooms or prime lenses.

So, to address the elephant in the room that is rarely mentioned: yes, even period correct builds constitute a BIG compromise. Sometimes you will find that, with certain 'period correct' systems, you can end up spending more time debugging than actually playing and enjoying games. It doesn't happen always, but it does happen and it can be very frustrating.

That is an very important point to mention. I think such problems cannot be avoided completely it is part of game building an old rig but I really should listen to you guys and focus more on the Athlon instead of the Pentium 3.

They really seem a better solution if you are looking for something that just works like myself. In that case it is really important to stick to stuff that is known to work.

@Joseph_Joestar Thx for your input on the Athlon as well.

This is kind of showcasing one issue with asking for 'general advice' with retro PC building. You'll get pulled everywhere with suggestions based on so many people's experiences.

In either case, any of the suggested builds over the past 6 pages should do you well. Lots of choice and options, it really just comes down to what's most available in your area/market.

Reiterating one important point with an Athlon XP build, make sure your chosen supply has at least 30+ amps on the +5V rail (at minimum). They didn't do the 'shift CPU to 12v' thing like P4s did so using any modern supply on it will have issues (some boards did use the P4 header but they can be difficult to find, most S462 boards don't have one).

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-05-22, 14:21:

The few caveats which I have with the AthlonXP platform are its somewhat picky PSU requirements (higher tier CPUs need plenty of amps on the 5V rail) and the reliance on old coolers. For those reasons, I mostly use my Athlon64 system for Win9x gaming now, which happily runs on a modern day PSU and can even take the latest Ryzen coolers without any issues. Basically, it's a low noise and low heat rig, which I can't exactly say for my AthlonXP system.

Yeah, the Athlon 64 builds (with VIA motherboards) can be awesome. They support modern coolers, modern PSUs, and on top of that... they're also pretty flexible in terms of speed.
However, I did not want to bring it up, since it tends to be a hit and miss because of the infamous BIOS "AGP" bug 😅. So I wouldn't really recommend it for someone who is building their first (and maybe only) retro PC.

As a first retro computer I think that it's more important that the building experience with getting the hardware running and the OS installed is good rather than that the result is some kind of actual wonder waffe do it all retro PC. The "do it all" project is perfect as build number 16 also known as the "My girlfriend is threatening to leave me unless..."-build.

Speed sensitive games can be a real hassle. Some games can be patched, some need good options for tuning the system speed and some even need a purpose built build just for that specific game. I do not really think this should be the main factor for a first build.

.

I have seen too many examples of first retro PC attempts like this.

Research ALOT ---> Buy one of few Socket A boards with ISA for an actual passable DOS/9x/XP-build ---> Find that the caps are bad ---> Can't fix ---> Project aborted before it even started.

So now I usually tell people to go for Intel chipsets and preferable boards from Intel or Asus* as a first build just to get a nice introduction to the retro PC scene. In my mind a first build is mostly for orientation even if it had an intended purpose like playing an old favorite game in Windows 9x or such.

In any case be on the lookout for bad caps regardless of the kind of motherboard you are shopping. Even the best Japanese caps can be cooked in the right environment. When it comes to boards with cheaper caps like for example Abit KT7, one of few (not counting hens teeth) Socket A boards with ISA expect that every non recapped board have bad caps.

*This does not not mean that Intel and Asus were the only two good motherboard makers just that they both did well through most of the retro era so they are safe(ish) bets.

bloodem wrote on 2023-05-22, 15:29:

However, I did not want to bring it up, since it tends to be a hit and miss because of the infamous BIOS "AGP" bug 😅. So I wouldn't really recommend it for someone who is building their first (and maybe only) retro PC.

Yeah, that and the bug with SATA 3 drives on certain VIA chipsets is what prevents me from recommending Athlon64 systems more often. Picking the right parts, plus choosing non-buggy BIOS and chipset versions can be way too complicated for someone who's just starting out.

But if (and that's a big IF) everything is properly set up, an Athlon64 system can be a really awesome late Win9x rig with tons of power and pretty much silent operation.

gen_angry wrote on 2023-05-22, 14:41:

This is kind of showcasing one issue with asking for 'general advice' with retro PC building. You'll get pulled everywhere with suggestions based on so many people's experiences.

In either case, any of the suggested builds over the past 6 pages should do you well. Lots of choices and options, it just comes down to what's most available in your area/market.

Reiterating one important point with an Athlon XP build, make sure your chosen supply has at least 30+ amps on the +5V rail (at minimum). They didn't do the 'shift CPU to 12v' thing like P4s did so using any modern supply on it will have issues (some boards did use the P4 header but they can be difficult to find, most S462 boards don't have one).

Yes such information overkill can be confusing for a noob like myself but it is still interesting and very valuable to hear from many different people with lots of experience.

@Skyscraper Yes I have already read about the caps. it is really important to check them even from the solid motherboards that have a good reputation. I will stick to advice of course and go for the type of motherboards that have a good reputation in the retro gaming community.

As it is the first time I will try to keep stuff as simple as possible and stick "literally" to the recommended set ups and just hope that it will work for me as well as for the people that recommended the stuff for me.