Late DOS games can be very CPU hungry if you use high resolution modes or expect stable and high frame rate (more than 60-70 fps).

For Slot 1, just go for a ~1GHz P3. Faster DX7 cards like the GF2 and R7500 are generally very CPU bottlenecked and have enough headroom for even Athlon CPUs. And if you need early DOS disable L1 for a 386/486 and both L1/L2 for a 286/386. Vesa modes in DOS games already need very fast CPUs anyway.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2023-06-15, 07:01:

Late DOS games can be very CPU hungry if you use high resolution modes or expect stable and high frame rate (more than 60-70 fps).

Yes I am fully aware of that. I found speed sensitive game list on vogons wiki

https://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/List_of_ … sensitive_games

That list partially inspired me for making the thread. After all many games I planned to play are on that list.

appiah4 wrote on 2023-06-15, 07:02:

For Slot 1, just go for a ~1GHz P3. Faster DX7 cards like the GF2 and R7500 are generally very CPU bottlenecked and have enough headroom for even Athlon CPUs. And if you need early DOS disable L1 for a 386/486 and both L1/L2 for a 286/386. Vesa modes in DOS games already need very fast CPUs anyway.

Thanks for your advice as well. 1ghz coppermine are quite expensive right away. In case I want to upgrade to a p3 for first though was to get 800, 850, 900 or 933 Mhz cpu.

These P3 variants are better priced than the 1 ghz model. But in case I find a good price for 1 GHZ P3 I would pull the trigger too of course.

I don't suppose there might be, i'd guess that more is better on the whole but if you're playing late 90's games on win 98 at around 1024x768 or something around that and you have that gf2 or 4 in place then just check the recommended spec of the game you're playing, if you have more Mhz than that you are good to go and having yet more Mhz won't really change your experience much

its fun to optimise and some folk sure do like to benchmark - but those things are not the same as playing a game

i suppose I'm saying that playing quake 3 on the same cloned pcs - but one has a celeron 733 and the other has a P3 1Ghz- is unlikely to yield any differences in fun, unless the fun is just doing fps measurements and comparing numbers of course 😀

and for late DOS games - I mean around 1997 eg Shadow Warrior - anything like a 500Mhz CPU will be just fine, more than fine in fact almost all the time

there are always exceptions, but you wont notice much while being fragged in quake 3, you'll be having too much fun !

If you want to play it safe with CPUs, avoid picking anything that needs 133 MHz FSB to get the actual frequency because it involves overclocking the 440BX chipset.

gamefan_851 wrote on 2023-06-15, 06:50:

My main mother board is slot 1 so with a slocket adapter I might be able to get a Pentium 3 working on that board up to 1 GHZ […]
Show full quote

My main mother board is slot 1 so with a slocket adapter I might be able to get a Pentium 3 working on that board up to 1 GHZ.

But would 1 GHZ cpu really make a pracitical difference with late DOS games and Win 9x games up to 1999?

Would be pleased hearing few opinons on that matter.

Thanks for the help in advance.

Hi there! I'm not sure if this is helpful, but our family's PC from 2000 was a Pentium III w/ 733 MHz.
It came pre-installed with Windows 98SE (an MS Works) and has a SB16 compatibility option in BIOS.

From what I remember, it had never shown any troubles running Windows 9x, Windows 3.1 or DOS programs.
My father used it for software development, too.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's the ideal DOS or Windows 9x rig.
I can only attest that it worked fine. It even ran Celestia at some point, that 3D planetarium (~in 2003, it was a very demanding application still).
Of course, speed sensitive games will have their issues (unless the caches are disabled).

When 98SE was showing its age, the Pentium III continued to do its duty under Windows XP.
At the time, memory was upgraded to 768MB of RAM.
All in all, the Pentium III platform was a good one, I think.
And that's me, who's usually more into 286 to 486 systems.

For early eras it's complicated. You sometimes want performance, other times the opposite - the ability to slow down the CPU. What was seen as ideal back then is not today, and vice versa. The Via C3 was a joke back then, but highly valued today. Also, choice of CPU forces you to use often bad chipsets. The 440BX is a great chipset, but limited CPU and FSB support. Even latter periods are a war between say P4s and Athlon XP. Back then, the XP was seen as much better, but the P4 has been somewhat redeemed as a retro platform for being cheap, stable and not depending on a huge 5V rail.

I think there is one era with a clear hands down winner - the WinXP/S775 era and the Core2 Duo E8500. One of the best CPUs for one of the best platforms of all time.

Gmlb256 wrote on 2023-06-15, 21:10:

If you want to play it safe with CPUs, avoid picking anything that needs 133 MHz FSB to get the actual frequency because it involves overclocking the 440BX chipset.

Thanks good to know. Overclocking is a interesting topic for me in general but not for my first build. I have too little experience with oc to consider it. So I will just stick cpu with 100fsb.

gerry wrote on 2023-06-15, 20:55:

I don't suppose there might be, i'd guess that more is better on the whole but if you're playing late 90's games on win 98 at ar […]
Show full quote

I don't suppose there might be, i'd guess that more is better on the whole but if you're playing late 90's games on win 98 at around 1024x768 or something around that and you have that gf2 or 4 in place then just check the recommended spec of the game you're playing, if you have more Mhz than that you are good to go and having yet more Mhz won't really change your experience much

its fun to optimise and some folk sure do like to benchmark - but those things are not the same as playing a game

i suppose I'm saying that playing quake 3 on the same cloned pcs - but one has a celeron 733 and the other has a P3 1Ghz- is unlikely to yield any differences in fun, unless the fun is just doing fps measurements and comparing numbers of course 😀

and for late DOS games - I mean around 1997 eg Shadow Warrior - anything like a 500Mhz CPU will be just fine, more than fine in fact almost all the time

there are always exceptions, but you wont notice much while being fragged in quake 3, you'll be having too much fun !

Playing in 1024x768 is indeed what I want to do. I also do not to focus that much on benchmarks. Enjoying the game is more important.

Like I said this just a more theoretical post. I am just curious how the "ultimate" intel 440bx gaming motherboard would look.

It is just knowledge for future use. For now I will stick with the stuff I have which means i will either play around with p2 400 mhz that comes with the mainboard or with the celeron 733 in case i can get it at the fleamarket tomorrow.

@Jo22 and kolderman thanks a lot for your replies as well.

Dont stress about CPU too much, you can always upgrade it later in case something runs too slow.
theoretical max would be ~1.6GHz tualatin in a modded slotket

Choosing an "optimal" CPU will probably depend on the goals of the particular system.

For Windows 98-era and beyond, more CPU is typically better, since having additional performance headroom doesn't hurt. On the other hand, having a faster CPU could result in higher power consumption and heat, depending on the specific CPU and efficiency.

For instance, my ultimate Windows 98 system uses an Athlon XP 2000+. While I could theoretically go faster, I'm trying to limit power consumption both to reduce unbalanced draw on the 5V rail (since I'm using a modern PSU) and keep heat down. But for gaming, it is plenty fast.

Generally a 1 GHz or faster CPU should give you enough headroom to not worry about performance in Windows 98.

rasz_pl wrote on 2023-06-16, 18:42:

Dont stress about CPU too much, you can always upgrade it later in case something runs too slow.
theoretical max would be ~1.6GHz tualatin in a modded slotket

Thanks for the info I won't. Like I said that is just idle curiosity how far I could go.

For now when then system is finished it will be tested with the p2 400 mhz that comes with it and in case I can get the 733 mhz celleron tomorrow it will also be tested with that cpu. I will think about upgrading to a higher clocked p3 later in the future.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-06-16, 20:44:

Choosing an "optimal" CPU will probably depend on the goals of the particular system. […]
Show full quote

Choosing an "optimal" CPU will probably depend on the goals of the particular system.

For Windows 98-era and beyond, more CPU is typically better, since having additional performance headroom doesn't hurt. On the other hand, having a faster CPU could result in higher power consumption and heat, depending on the specific CPU and efficiency.

For instance, my ultimate Windows 98 system uses an Athlon XP 2000+. While I could theoretically go faster, I'm trying to limit power consumption both to reduce unbalanced draw on the 5V rail (since I'm using a modern PSU) and keep heat down. But for gaming, it is plenty fast.

Generally a 1 GHz or faster CPU should give you enough headroom to not worry about performance in Windows 98.

Thanks for your reply. The main goal of the system to have decent late DOS and early Windows 98e gaming system up to 1999 that can run the famours games of that time frame without any problems.

I decided to go with a slot 1 intel bx 440 system because I have read that this system is supposed to run rather stable for the applications of my desired time frame and mb like my future Asus p2 mb can also be upgraded rather easily to even higher specs like a Pentium 3 1 ghz.

It seems to be rather flexible mother board which is good thing.

For the ulimate gaming machine which was my first dream something like your build a high powered Athlon would be the better choice.

But taking the more peroid correct approach for my system is also very interesting. It is fully peroid correct though, I will either use geforce gts or geforce mx as my main gpu.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-06-16, 20:44:

Choosing an "optimal" CPU will probably depend on the goals of the particular system. […]
Show full quote

Choosing an "optimal" CPU will probably depend on the goals of the particular system.

For Windows 98-era and beyond, more CPU is typically better, since having additional performance headroom doesn't hurt. On the other hand, having a faster CPU could result in higher power consumption and heat, depending on the specific CPU and efficiency.

For instance, my ultimate Windows 98 system uses an Athlon XP 2000+. While I could theoretically go faster, I'm trying to limit power consumption both to reduce unbalanced draw on the 5V rail (since I'm using a modern PSU) and keep heat down. But for gaming, it is plenty fast.

Generally a 1 GHz or faster CPU should give you enough headroom to not worry about performance in Windows 98.

Ha! I went for a T-Bred AthlonXP2200+ and a Voodoo3 for my Ultimate Voodoo 3 build as well, though I have an LGA775 Core2Duo 4600 wth an X800XT PE in my Ultimate Win98Se build 😅

One thing that could help answer this question is to first establish the rules of what you want, and what’s important to you, otherwise you will never find the correct answer.

For example, you could say that you’re looking to get the best performance possible without overclocking and without modding any component. So, just using stock components. Or you could say you don’t want the AGP bus to be overclocked, but don’t mind if the CPU is. Or you could just say that anything goes, except swapping the motherboard for a different one.

appiah4 wrote on 2023-06-17, 05:54:

Ha! I went for a T-Bred AthlonXP2200+ and a Voodoo3 for my Ultimate Voodoo 3 build as well, though I have an LGA775 Core2Duo 4600 wth an X800XT PE in my Ultimate Win98Se build 😅

And here I thought an Athlon XP was overkill for a Windows 98 build. I can only imagine what a Core2Duo would be like. 😁

devius wrote on 2023-06-19, 12:08:

One thing that could help answer this question is to first establish the rules of what you want, and what’s important to you, otherwise you will never find the correct answer.

For example, you could say that you’re looking to get the best performance possible without overclocking and without modding any component. So, just using stock components. Or you could say you don’t want the AGP bus to be overclocked, but don’t mind if the CPU is. Or you could just say that anything goes, except swapping the motherboard for a different one.

That's a good approach to the topic.

My goals are moving target so to speak. on the long run I am interested in the overlocking topic but for now I just want to know what is possible with the asus p2b mb with a stock gpu and stock cpu.

The ASUS P2B Supports the AGP Power via an onboard voltage regulator, the succsessor P3B uses the 3.3V Line from Power Supply. So you should look for a card with external power connector or a card with moderate power consumption.

I would choose a fast, affordable 100MHz FSB P3, e.g. a P3 850 and a GF3 Ti 200 variant with external power connector or a Voodoo 5500 if you have the money.

The nVidia and 3DFx cards are very unproblematic in DOS. And with this CPU/GPU/MoBo combination you cover everything up to 2001 very well.

PC-Engineer wrote on 2023-06-19, 15:01:

The ASUS P2B Supports the AGP Power via an onboard voltage regulator, the succsessor P3B uses the 3.3V Line from Power Supply. So you should look for a card with external power connector or a card with moderate power consumption.

I would choose a fast, affordable 100MHz FSB P3, e.g. a P3 850 and a GF3 Ti 200 variant with external power connector or a Voodoo 5500 if you have the money.

The nVidia and 3DFx cards are very unproblematic in DOS. And with this CPU/GPU/MoBo combination you cover everything up to 2001 very well.

Thanks for your recommendation. Yes a fast p3 with 100 fsb was also my first thought for the best cpu. Gpu wise I have considered a gf 2, gf mx 400 or a geforce 4 mx 440. But looking into card of the GF 3 series also sounds like a very good recommendation.

Having a Voodoo 5 would be awesome but I do not have that much money to spend for now for a Voodoo card. But if could a Voodoo 5 would be on my buying list for sure.

If you're already looking for a GeForce card, the Voodoo5 isn't worth it. Better find a Voodoo2 card as a companion instead if Glide compatibility is wanted, the downside is that it requires a VGA passthrough cable but for me that isn't a big deal.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-06-19, 12:50:

appiah4 wrote on 2023-06-17, 05:54:

Ha! I went for a T-Bred AthlonXP2200+ and a Voodoo3 for my Ultimate Voodoo 3 build as well, though I have an LGA775 Core2Duo 4600 wth an X800XT PE in my Ultimate Win98Se build 😅

And here I thought an Athlon XP was overkill for a Windows 98 build. I can only imagine what a Core2Duo would be like. 😁

I'd be tempted to say "under utilized", after all win 98 will only use 32 of the 64 bits from one of the two cores... I'm sure it would be fast though

Win98 freshly installed on its own is fast enough (imo) on a P2 with 64mb ram - the slowest thing then is hard disc and any driver strangeness so a SSD i guess would improve things noticeably

some games that can run on win98 may benefit from the extra CPU power (and extra RAM of course) but i cant think of a game that *requires* windows 98 and also would notably benefit from CPUs made after windows XP became standard in new PCs - in other words, by the time games needed 1ghz+ CPU speed windows XP was already a viable platform for it

still, if a core duo is going spare then why not 😀