CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2024-10-11, 18:32:

I think you are choosing a good approach. That P3 is pretty straightforward build compared to trying to figure out an all-in-one […]
Show full quote

I think you are choosing a good approach. That P3 is pretty straightforward build compared to trying to figure out an all-in-one solution for 10-15 years. And they are IMO ”classical” PC systems from a fascinating time period.

Typically there are couple of ways to slow down such system. With SETMUL software you can disable cache on the CPU on slot 1 system. I never had to do this because I have bunch of systems to cover different time periods, but I imagine that something like P3 600 should probably slow down to something like slow 386 or even 286 level when you don’t have cache enabled.

Other very simple method is using different software throttling tools to ”choke” the CPU, such as moslo. These won’t generally work well on fast machines such as P4, but are completely usable on low to mid tier P3s. There are many options, but moslo is probably one of the most popular. I sometimes use these on my fast 486 boxes when I don’t bother to swap something slower on my desk. You practically can adjust the software on command line how much you want it to push brakes.

You can search this forum about slowing down these systems and you will find lots of information. And I should say that most likely everything you are currently pondering about building such computer, is already discussed here on many occasions. Computer you are planning to build is like a bread and butter of retro PC computing and thus many hobbyists here are very, very familiar with them.

Awesome. Thank you. ^^

So, as for the mobo, someone suggested the Socket 7...? Still not 100% on that. Also, funnily enough, I believe I read that today is the 30th birthday of the Geforce 256...? I think that might be out of the question anyway. There aren't any on eBay UK and the couple I've seen sold went for £150. So I think a Geforce 2 would be a safer bet.

I can assure you that the geforce 256 didn't exist in 1994

DustyShinigami wrote on 2024-10-11, 19:01:

So, as for the mobo, someone suggested the Socket 7...? Still not 100% on that. Also, funnily enough, I believe I read that today is the 30th birthday of the Geforce 256...?

25th birthday, not 30th. But... thanks for making me feel old.

Next year will be the 30th for Windows 95. Wow.

DustyShinigami wrote on 2024-10-11, 19:01:

Awesome. Thank you. ^^

So, as for the mobo, someone suggested the Socket 7...? Still not 100% on that. Also, funnily enough, I believe I read that today is the 30th birthday of the Geforce 256...? I think that might be out of the question anyway. There aren't any on eBay UK and the couple I've seen sold went for £150. So I think a Geforce 2 would be a safer bet.

GeForce 256 became available, that is for sale, 11th October 1999. So 25 years ago.

About socket 7, I wouldn't choose that for late 90s with only caveat being a Super Socket 7 platform paired with a fast K6-2 or K6-3 CPU. Something like 600MHz P3 is still beefier option and good SS7 mobos tend to be much more expensive nowadays.

Ah. Yes, 25th. My bad. ^^;

The danger of this place is that you might discover that tinkering with old hardware is as much fun as playing the computer games that you used as an excuse to buy/collect the old hardware in the first place. You have been warned.

Repo Man11 wrote on 2024-10-12, 00:12:

The danger of this place is that you might discover that tinkering with old hardware is as much fun as playing the computer games that you used as an excuse to buy/collect the old hardware in the first place. You have been warned.

I dunno... I think I can exercise some restraint 🤣. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy collecting computer components, setting them up, and configuring them, but there's just sooooooooo damn much out there. So much hardware that's been released over the years; that's slipped my radar. I've never been able to keep up to speed with it all. Even now. Usually, once I find the right hardware that does what I want to my satisfactory, I'm good. 😀 Plus, funds and space are a common issue. In all honesty, I don't even have any space to put this 98 build at the moment. No where to set it up. Hopefully that changes in the future.

VivienM wrote on 2024-10-11, 19:17:

DustyShinigami wrote on 2024-10-11, 19:01:

So, as for the mobo, someone suggested the Socket 7...? Still not 100% on that. Also, funnily enough, I believe I read that today is the 30th birthday of the Geforce 256...?

25th birthday, not 30th. But... thanks for making me feel old.

In just four years the video card evolved from ATI Mach64 or S3 Vision968 of 1995 to GeForce 256 of 1999.

And my "newest" computer will celebrate its 6th birthday three days later. 🙄 What a stagnancy.

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2024-10-11, 19:35:

About socket 7, I wouldn't choose that for late 90s with only caveat being a Super Socket 7 platform paired with a fast K6-2 or K6-3 CPU. Something like 600MHz P3 is still beefier option and good SS7 mobos tend to be much more expensive nowadays.

Joseph_Joestar pointed out that OP's list of games had a very large gap of fourteen years. Should OP decide to split that list for two computers then a (Super) Socket 7 build would be very fitting for the older half.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-10-11, 15:47:

Your range goes (at least) from 1990 to 2004.

2011 for "Deus Ex 3" (Human Revolution) which won't work on WIn98 at all. Also the original digital release is severely buried into unavailability.

dormcat wrote on 2024-10-12, 05:11:

Joseph_Joestar pointed out that OP's list of games had a very large gap of fourteen years. Should OP decide to split that list for two computers then a (Super) Socket 7 build would be very fitting for the older half.

OP has lately pointed out that he probably should focus his build better and mainly towards the late 90s windows gaming and build the system based on that. It is IMO a good decision and with a system like that he can have also very good DOS compatibility with ISA sound card and slowing down the system when needed.

SS7 is a good option like I said, or tried to say, but IMO something like 440BX is better. Better mobo availability, more CPU options and availability. better performance and SS7 mobos are often more expensive. Thus and especially for the first build I wouldn’t put SS7 on top of the list.

There's a few compatibility minefields to know about:

- VGA's lack of some CGA paletting tricks, and that special CGA 'low res' mode (Round 42)
- 3D accelerated and exotic SVGA cards making precious sacred dos platformer Commander Keen Goodbye Galaxy stutter
- the hell that is PCI sound cards and their big TSRs to emulate compatibility, which aren't fully compatible even if your brand is Sound Blaster. ('1992 sb16 not period correct' is funny considering some OEMs (including premium big gamer brand Falcon Northwest) still had sb16s in the late 90s.)
- '99+ card's lack of EGA fonts (TSR'able)
- 2K/XP's NTVDM being really rough (and dropped from 64-bit Windows XP onward anyway)
- 2006+ DX10 hardware dropping dithering for ATI/nVidia and making depth precision somewhat worse (flickery decals/shadows)

440bx, with slot 1 goes all the way from p2 233-p3 1400.

With s370 and the right board/mods, ~300-1400.

Iirc the 1400 was 133x10.5. Meaning dropping it to 66=700.

Select a 133 fsb chip, and you can always halve it if required.
Eg p3 1000 (7. 5x133) can be 500.

Similar for the 100 chips, but 66%.

Worst case, just find a 233 and a faster one.

I use a 500 MHz Celeron for my Win98SE gaming. All my favourite FPS and others work perfectly well.
Very happy with it.

leileilol wrote on 2024-10-12, 06:19:

There's a few compatibility minefields to know about:

- VGA's lack of some CGA paletting tricks, and that special CGA 'low res' mode (Round 42)

Years ago I investigated games of this type, those made by Windmill, and Round 42, Microsoft Decathlon, etc.. and was able to patch them to run correctly with VGA.

It's all documented on my site, but I don't know if I'm allowed to link to it.

Robbbert wrote on 2024-10-12, 06:49:

I use a 500 MHz Celeron for my Win98SE gaming. All my favourite FPS and others work perfectly well.

I'm guessing they work "perfectly well" according to your expectations, or you don't play very demanding games. Back in the day, most people (myself included) were happy to see their games run at 25-30 FPS with VSync off and using a period correct resolution like 800x600 with no AA/AF.

Nowadays, that's just not good enough for me. For first-person games especially, I need a locked 60 FPS if I'm playing with a mouse + keyboard. Resolution wise, I go for 1600x1200 when possible, and I like to crank up AA and AF to further enhance the visuals. For that, a very powerful system is needed, especially for some CPU demanding games like Unreal Tournament and Deus Ex.

As an example, take a look at this period correct benchmark of Unreal Tournament on an Athlon 750 paired with a GeForce 2. It can't reach 60 FPS even at the lowest resolution of 640x480. And that's average frame rate, not taking 1% lows into account. I certainly wouldn't play it like that today.

But again, this is just my personal preference. Other people might not place such high demands on their retro rigs, and that's fine too. As long as folks are having fun with their games, it's all good.

You don't need a retro pc for unreal though - unless you're a glide purist.

myne wrote on 2024-10-12, 07:29:

You don't need a retro pc for unreal though - unless you're a glide purist.

Or if you want to play with A3D 2.0 since Aureal Vortex 2 cards only work correctly under Win9x. But that wasn't my point. You don't need a retro PC for most games from the OPs list.

I'm just saying that some games from the late 90s and early 2000s are surprisingly demanding if you want to play them on a period correct retro rig, but expect a locked 60 FPS in high resolutions, and especially with AA/AF.

myne wrote on 2024-10-12, 06:23:

440bx, with slot 1 goes all the way from p2 233-p3 1400.

Are you sure about that? IIRC the fastest Slot 1 CPU was P3-1133 with 133MHz FSB, unless you overclocked a P3-1000 with 100MHz FSB.

All Unreal engine 1 games require 1GHz+ CPU for comfortable gameplay. Preferably Athlon XP/Pentium III-S.

dormcat wrote on 2024-10-12, 07:47:

myne wrote on 2024-10-12, 06:23:

440bx, with slot 1 goes all the way from p2 233-p3 1400.

Are you sure about that? IIRC the fastest Slot 1 CPU was P3-1133 with 133MHz FSB, unless you overclocked a P3-1000 with 100MHz FSB.

Slotket required - and luck with 133fsb

leileilol wrote on 2024-10-12, 05:49:

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-10-11, 15:47:

Your range goes (at least) from 1990 to 2004.

2011 for "Deus Ex 3" (Human Revolution) which won't work on WIn98 at all. Also the original digital release is severely buried into unavailability.

Admittedly, I've still yet to play those games, though I have them I think. I didn't realise the first one was as modern as 2011. My bad. Those can be crossed off the list then.