DudeFace wrote on 2024-11-03, 11:45:EDIT: also sorry RetroPCCupboard for highjacking your thread with EAX talk.😀
No worries. Its all relavaent to choosing what hardware to use across my target timespan.
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-11-03, 12:18:DudeFace wrote on 2024-11-03, 11:45:i just passed up on one local to me, thought it was strange it had a gameport but no 9X drivers, shame as it could have been a 1 card solution to cover 9X/xp
Quick note on this. Even though the connector on the X-Fi might look like a gameport, it's not. That's an AD_LINK port used to hook up an additional I/O unit.
Also, there are no Win9x drivers for any X-Fi cards.
good to know, i did think it was strange to have a game port, thought they were way past that by then, i did look hard for 9X drivers, hoped there would be some hacked/modded or even 3rd party ones, but no dice, could have made things a lot simpler, i just want one card to do it all, seems the options are:
just found this post so going the 2 card route and chaining them together seems like a good option.
Re: kX driver users.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-03, 12:39:DudeFace wrote on 2024-11-03, 11:45:EDIT: also sorry RetroPCCupboard for highjacking your thread with EAX talk.😀
No worries. Its all relavaent to choosing what hardware to use across my target timespan.
i'm glad it was at least relevant 😀
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-03, 06:52:Yes, makes sense. Other than the Roland, I do have the parts to do the rest. Although I think V3 can benefit from a slightly faster CPU than K6III?
Most video cards can, and yes the V3 will benefit from a faster CPU, but I tend to make sure the CPU and not the video card is the bottleneck in my builds. In this case the Voodoo 3 can offload some of the work the K6 would otherwise have to do. A V2 would work as well, but it can be saturated by a fast K6-III unlike the V3 and it's more expensive.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-03, 06:52:My understanding is that the Geforce GTS introduced some graphical differences that made some games look worse. I think Incoming is one example. This is why I had a build with the TNT2.
I've never heard of this, and I doubt the card itself has lower rendering quality then a TNT. I'm quite sure what you're describing is a driver issue, as nvidia were caught "cheating" in that timeframe with their drivers, lowering image quality to boost FPS. Nowerdays the call it a feature and try to sell it to us as DLSS and other bull****.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-03, 06:52:But, yes, I like this card and did want to use it in one of my builds. I am not familiar with the C3 CPU. What's the advantage in using it?
Like the K6-2/3, it can be slowed down or speed up via multiplier changes on the fly. It is however, faster then a K6-2, and it also takes advantage of a newer faster platform. The Nemiah core of the VIA cpu family has a full-speed FPU, unlike other versions like the Samuel witch run the FPU at half speed. A 1200MHz C3 is about as fast as a 733MHz coppermine pentium III, and can be slowed down on the fly to about 386DX-40 levels. A 550MHz K6-II is I believe about on par with a 350MHz pentium II - so if you'd like a retro rig that can run an even wider array of games, A VIA Nemiah is the way to go. Unfortunately finding a motherboard that properly supports the chip is a pain in the butt. Without proper support, the CPU will be detected but will underperform severely, particularly when it comes to memory and cache performance. My 1200MHz gets 1020MB/sec read speed on the Epox board in that build, but only half (not kidding, half) that in a MSI with the same exact chipset. Intel 815 motherboards tend to support the Nemiah netter, but lack an ISA slot. Not an issue if the board has an SB-LINK header and you pair it with a Yamaha DS-XG, but I dont know how many tualatin boards retained the SB-LINK connector.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-03, 06:52:An early P4 will obviously beat it performance-wise and is much cheaper. Likewise with the Radeon.
Actually an early p4 is quite a bit slower clock per clock, is hot and uses a lot of power compared to a pentium 3. And it lacks ISA. I believe a 1400Mhz Pentium III-S is about as fast as a 1.9-2GHz pentium 4 willamette (at least from my own testing). The only thing the pentium 4 has going for it is price and availability. When using SDRAM the pentium 4 falls on it's ass. It needs RDRAM or DDRAM to even compete. Right now I'm playing around with a newly found MSI MS-9105 (dual socket 370 + DDR) build, and I was comparing it to my Optiplex GX400 (1.7GHz willamette + RDRAM). 2nd CPU aside, the 1.26Ghz tualatin is much snappier in games. The only game I tried where the pentium 4 is a tiny bit faster is Quake 2. In homeworld, UT99, Dungeon Keeper 2, Return to castle Wolfenstein and Black and White (1) the tualatin is a lot smoother. I might make a comparison thread with numbers at one point. Also - fun fact - the Pentium M Centrion and Core 2 Series are derived form the P6 architecture, and (at least the Pentium M) share some silicon with the Tualatin P3's.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-03, 06:52:I have one in my collection but couldn't think of any games that would be better on it than a geforce 3-4?
Yes, particularly on this build. The 8500 performs similar to a Geforce 3 Ti, and has some neat extra features (witch some games make use of), one of them is ATi trueform. It also has a bit less driver overhead, and I don't have to suffer trough nvidia forceware on VIA chipset issues like I would with an actual Geforce card (some early forceware drivers do not play nice with some VIA chipsets). I also find the 8500 has better texture compression and color output. Another issue is lots of openGL games are way to dark with nvidia forceware drives of that period. No such issues with ATi / Catalyst. A better card for this build would be a 7500, but unfortunately I don't own one.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-03, 06:52:I made a build like this on my test bench. Was great for WinXP. But under Win98 I found many games didn't work. 3DMark worked well though. What's your experience on compatability with this?
That's why I'm using a VIA chipset motherboard. The KT880 has perfect windows 9x support and performace similar to the nForce 2. I've never been able to reliably run 98 on any of my nforce build. I've experienced anything from crashes to desktop, freezes, BSODs, and general system instability with nforce 2 + windows 98. No such issues with most VIA chipsets (apart from the KT600, but we don't talk about the KT600). Compatibility and performance are both perfect. I used to run one of my MSI FX5900 Ultra's in this build, but found it can actually benefit from a bit more graphical horsepower, particularly at high resolution gaming (1600x1200 and even 2560x1440 if the game supports or can be forced to that resolution without crashing / graphical glitches).
I should have done this earlier, but I have just spent the last couple of hours watching videos of games released from the early 80s through to the early 90s. I can see now why several people recommended that I get a 286.
Even though the 386 was released in 1985 (My stated earliest target year) I can see that looking at the games released almost none of them look like they targeted the 386. This makes sense, as you want to develop a game to target the widest audience. I am not sure what percentage of games released 1985-1989 (the period before the 486 released) would have worked on a 386 at all. Perhaps they would run too fast? This is quite stark contrast to what happened in the mid 1990s and early 2000s. Typically those games would run like crap on even the most modern hardware and basically would need computers that didn't exist yet to play smoothly with decent settings.
The games I used to play on my 286 back in the day were actually released late 80s and early 90s. So, perhaps, targeting 1985 is sooner than I need, as I have no nostalgia for those earlier titles.
Having said that though, I do like Sierra adventure games. So I think I want to be able to go back and play most of those. Some of those were released even before 1985.
I do though have nostalgia for the 286 hardware itself. So I guess I am a bit undecided now. Do I need a 286, as I like the hardware (Especially the sounds it made). Or is a slowed Pentium enough, as I think that will play most of the games I have nostalgia for. Most 1980s games use PC speaker for sound, so no benefit in having a sound card for those. Maybe Dosbox is enough for me to satisfy my curiosity in trying those old Sierra adventure titles that don't work on the slowed Pentium....
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-04, 06:33:I should have done this earlier, but I have just spent the last couple of hours watching videos of games released from the early […]
I should have done this earlier, but I have just spent the last couple of hours watching videos of games released from the early 80s through to the early 90s. I can see now why several people recommended that I get a 286.
Even though the 386 was released in 1985 (My stated earliest target year) I can see that looking at the games released almost none of them look like they targeted the 386. This makes sense, as you want to develop a game to target the widest audience. I am not sure what percentage of games released 1985-1989 (the period before the 486 released) would have worked on a 386 at all. Perhaps they would run too fast? This is quite stark contrast to what happened in the mid 1990s and early 2000s. Typically those games would run like crap on even the most modern hardware and basically would need computers that didn't exist yet to play smoothly with decent settings.
The games I used to play on my 286 back in the day were actually released late 80s and early 90s. So, perhaps, targeting 1985 is sooner than I need, as I have no nostalgia for those earlier titles.
Having said that though, I do like Sierra adventure games. So I think I want to be able to go back and play most of those. Some of those were released even before 1985.
I do though have nostalgia for the 286 hardware itself. So I guess I am a bit undecided now. Do I need a 286, as I like the hardware (Especially the sounds it made). Or is a slowed Pentium enough, as I think that will play most of the games I have nostalgia for. Most 1980s games use PC speaker for sound, so no benefit in having a sound card for those. Maybe Dosbox is enough for me to satisfy my curiosity in trying those old Sierra adventure titles that don't work on the slowed Pentium....
You don't NEED a 286.... but you want one.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-04, 06:33:Having said that though, I do like Sierra adventure games. So I think I want to be able to go back and play most of those. Some of those were released even before 1985.
I do though have nostalgia for the 286 hardware itself. So I guess I am a bit undecided now. Do I need a 286, as I like the hardware (Especially the sounds it made). Or is a slowed Pentium enough, as I think that will play most of the games I have nostalgia for. Most 1980s games use PC speaker for sound, so no benefit in having a sound card for those. Maybe Dosbox is enough for me to satisfy my curiosity in trying those old Sierra adventure titles that don't work on the slowed Pentium....
As someone who grew up with a 286 (our first family computer was a 12 MHz 286) and played a lot of games from that era especially Sierra games, I can say you don't *need* a 286.
All of the old Sierra adventures going back to the original King's Quest had in-game speed options for limiting the game's speed on faster processors. The only game I've found that has speed sensitive issues is the intro animation for Police Quest 2 which we talked about in the other thread.
The other thing to consider is other hardware options of that era. For example, Tandy computers had their own graphics and audio. Early Sierra games could use 3-channel Tandy sound which was an upgrade over regular PC speaker. If you're interested in experiencing that aspect of 80's hardware, it's something to consider. But you can also always do that via emulation (Dosbox).
Socket3 wrote on 2024-11-04, 15:55:You don't NEED a 286.... but you want one.
You are probably correct. 😀
Also thanks for your detailed reply to my response to yours about the various hardware options. It all makes perfect sense to me. You have far more knowledge than I.
Shponglefan wrote on 2024-11-04, 16:21:As someone who grew up with a 286 (our first family computer was a 12 MHz 286) and played a lot of games from that era especially Sierra games, I can say you don't *need* a 286.
All of the old Sierra adventures going back to the original King's Quest had in-game speed options for limiting the game's speed on faster processors. The only game I've found that has speed sensitive issues is the intro animation for Police Quest 2 which we talked about in the other thread.
The other thing to consider is other hardware options of that era. For example, Tandy computers had their own graphics and audio. Early Sierra games could use 3-channel Tandy sound which was an upgrade over regular PC speaker. If you're interested in experiencing that aspect of 80's hardware, it's something to consider. But you can also always do that via emulation (Dosbox).
OK. That's good to know. You have both talked me out of getting a 286. Haha. I think I will use emulation for anything I can't get to run on the Pseudo 386.
On another note, I thought about what you said about the 8800 gta 512 failures. So, as backup, I bought two GTS 250 1gb cards. £8 each (with 2yr warranty!). I believe they are basically the same as the 8800 GTS 512 (G92 vs G92b core), but die shrunk from 65nm to 55nm and with double the VRAM. I don't think there's much point getting a much more modern card, as the CPU will likely limit performance. Maybe could even SLI them....
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-04, 16:50:I don't think there's much point getting a much more modern card, as the CPU will likely limit performance.
I've said this elsewhere, but one potential use case for an overpowered GPU would be forcing 8xSGSSAA (and 16xAF) in some of the more demanding WinXP games, while playing them at 1600x1200.
Granted, not everyone appreciates that level of anti aliasing, but I really like how clean the image looks with SGSSAA. It also mostly gets rid of the shimmer on things like tree leaves and blades of grass. If you're not familiar with SGSSAA, look it up. The PC Gaming Wiki has instructions on how to enable it in a number of games.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-04, 16:50:Maybe could even SLI them....
While I've never used SLI personally, I remember stories about it introducing micro stutter in some cases, particularly during the early days of its implementation. Maybe someone else who has more experience with this can clarify it further.
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-11-04, 16:57:I've said this elsewhere, but one potential use case for an overpowered GPU would be forcing 8xSGSSAA (and 16xAF) in some of the more demanding WinXP games, while playing them at 1600x1200.
Granted, not everyone appreciates that level of anti aliasing, but I really like how clean the image looks with SGSSAA. It also mostly gets rid of the shimmer on things like tree leaves and blades of grass. If you're not familiar with SGSSAA, look it up. The PC Gaming Wiki has instructions on how to enable it in a number of games.
I do have a GTX 580 if I wanted to play around with that. Although I saw a Midnight Geek video where he said he encountered numerous bugs in games with a newer GPU. I forget which. So I am a little worried about going too modern for the PCs in this cupboard.
I do have a PC outside of this cupboard with GTX 750 Ti and i7 3770. That's hooked up to an LCD, where I think anti-aliasing is more important than when using a CRT.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-04, 17:10:I do have a GTX 580 if I wanted to play around with that. Although I saw a Midnight Geek video where he said he encountered numerous bugs in games with a newer GPU. I forget which. So I am a little worried about going too modern for the PCs in this cupboard.
You'll find that a bunch of people here are happily using GTX 960, 970 or 980 cards under WinXP.
I've been pretty happy with the GTX 970 in my WinXP rig, and haven't really noticed any particular issues compared to the GTX 650 that I had there before. You do need to cap the frame rate to 60 in most cases, but that holds true for any overpowered GPU. The physics in many games from the early-mid 2000s are tied to the frame rate, so things break if it's too high.
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-11-04, 16:57:While I've never used SLI personally, I remember stories about it introducing micro stutter in some cases, particularly during the early days of its implementation. Maybe someone else who has more experience with this can clarify it further.
I have heard the same. Though I did used to run two 8800 GTS 512 in SLI. I stupidly gave one of them away though. So only have the one card now. I don't recall seeing any stutter. But maybe there was and I forgot. It was another lifetime back then, and gaming expectations were different.
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-11-04, 17:16:You'll find that a bunch of people here are happily using GTX 960, 970 or 980 cards under WinXP.
I've been pretty happy with the GTX 970 in my WinXP rig, and haven't really noticed any particular issues compared to the GTX 650 that I had there before. You do need to cap the frame rate to 60 in most cases, but that holds true for any overpowered GPU. The physics in many games from the early-mid 2000s are tied to the frame rate, so things break if it's too high.
I did used to have a GTX 970 in the system with the QX9650. But, at the time, I was playing Windows 7 era games. Not XP. I sold that GPU. But easy enough to get another. They aren't that expensive currently. I can't put one in my i7 system though, as it's a low profile case.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-10-30, 16:29:Late WinXP (2005-2010) / Windows Vista (2007-2009) 4Gb DDR2 RAM Core 2 Quad QX9650 @3.8Ghz (Nov 2007) Geforce 8800 GTS 512 (Dec […]
Late WinXP (2005-2010) / Windows Vista (2007-2009)
4Gb DDR2 RAM
Core 2 Quad QX9650 @3.8Ghz (Nov 2007)
Geforce 8800 GTS 512 (Dec 2007)
Auzentech Prelude 7.1 Sound Blaster X-FI
Large Tower ATX Desktop PC
I am currently looking at the specs for this PC and wondering if it makes sense in this cupboard. The monitor is a CRT with max resolution of 1600x1200. I can't think of any vista era games that don't support wide-screen. Are there any?
If there arent any Vista era games that need 4:3 ratio (or are best played on 4:3), then perhaps I am better off playing these games on my 1080p screen on a PC outside of this cupboard. Affectively this means the PC won't need to run anything past around 2007 I think.
So, if I don't need Vista support, then I think the Core 2 Quad is a bit wasted here. Would it be better to use a Core 2 Duo E8600?
Also, regarding the 8800 GTS 512, I have now acquired another that's identical to my existing one. My plan was to SLI them in this machine. Does this make sense to do given the resolution of the screen and the games I will run? Alternatively I have a GTX 280 1gb now for a single-card alternative, and also a GTX 580 1.5gb. Though I am thinking the 580 may cause issues in some games due to the amount of vram .
By the way, I should add that my i7 3770k machine with GTX 75o Ti should be able to run any XP game with additional quality settings like higher AA and AF on a 1080p screen. Perhaps not for Vista era games though, if I choose to install that OS in it too. Though I think it doesn't support SGSSAA as suggested by Joseph Joestar. It is the fastest low-profile XP card I believe. So I can't upgrade it further.
I think 19" CRT at 1600x1200 doesn't really need high AA does it? So perhaps a 900 series GPU is overkill for that monitor? Is SGSSAA noticeable on CRT?
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-19, 08:17:I think 19" CRT at 1600x1200 doesn't really need high AA does it? So perhaps a 900 series GPU is overkill for that monitor? Is SGSSAA noticeable on CRT?
Honestly, I don't think you need that on a CRT monitor. The jaggies are far less noticeable there. I could maybe see SGSSAA being useful for reducing movement related texture shimmer, but even that isn't much of an issue on a CRT.
P.S.
I recently shared some of my experiences with SGSSAA in this post. You can try applying those settings (via Nvidia Profile Inspector) on your GTX 750 Ti just to see if it works. Note that certain games might need special compatibility bits, which are usually available on the PC Gaming Wiki.
A 286 or even a 8088 may not be strictly essential using tricks to slow down a mmx, but if you want to delve into the huge amount of software from the 80s, I find it more comfortable and genuine to use a 286 that cover almost all dos games from 1981 until 1991 (en even in this case is needed to deal with the first 4,7 mhz sensitive games)
It also depends on the country, In Spain there are many own games that, although they were poor conversions of 8-bit microcomputers, have their nostalgic charm, and it is very difficult to adjust the speed in a mmx. There are also bootable games in which modifying the speed of the computer is less easy. In short, using 7 computers and going through eras, I find it more useful to have a 286 for games before 1991.
mannycalavera wrote on 2024-11-19, 12:22:A 286 or even a 8088 may not be strictly essential using tricks to slow down a mmx, but if you want to delve into the huge amount of software from the 80s, I find it more comfortable and genuine to use a 286 that cover almost all dos games from 1981 until 1991 (en even in this case is needed to deal with the first 4,7 mhz sensitive games)
It also depends on the country, In Spain there are many own games that, although they were poor conversions of 8-bit microcomputers, have their nostalgic charm, and it is very difficult to adjust the speed in a mmx. There are also bootable games in which modifying the speed of the computer is less easy. In short, using 7 computers and going through eras, I find it more useful to have a 286 for games before 1991.
I think the difficult here for the OP is that 1) He doesn't have a personal attachment to computers older than a Pentium and 2) he wants a PS/2 mouse that works with his KVM switch
Neither of those are insurmountable, but they can be legit impediments.
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-10-23, 07:13:A PS/2 mouse will have a lower polling rate than a USB mouse. You can tweak that a bit using programs like PS2Rate, but it still feels sluggish to me compared to even the most generic USB mouse intended for office use. And a proper USB gaming mouse is a different story entirely. To each their own though, if the PS/2 polling rate doesn't bother you, that's perfectly fine. Everybody's sensitivity to this is different.
Since you have said this, I have now noticed that movement in FPS games isn't smooth. When I plug in USB mouse that issue does go away. I never noticed it before. So I guess the next question is do I try to find one of those USB/PS2 Belkin KVMs (along with the cables), or do I use a wireless USB mouse and just plug it into the PC I'm using from a front port, or do I get an 8-way USB switch to use in addition to the PS/2 KVM (I'm thinking that a USB2 USB switch may have less latency than a KVM).
Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-11-19, 08:40:Honestly, I don't think you need that on a CRT monitor. The jaggies are far less noticeable there. I could maybe see SGSSAA being useful for reducing movement related texture shimmer, but even that isn't much of an issue on a CRT.
P.S.
I recently shared some of my experiences with SGSSAA in this post. You can try applying those settings (via Nvidia Profile Inspector) on your GTX 750 Ti just to see if it works. Note that certain games might need special compatibility bits, which are usually available on the PC Gaming Wiki.
Thanks. That's good to know. I will have to download that nVidia inspector tool and try it out. On the subject of resolutions I've been trialling a 1080p IPS touchscreen to attach to my "Ultimate" XP PC that dual boots with Linux for web browsing (ASUS VT229H). I was pleasantly surprised how good the scaling on the screen was for 1024x768 resolution (It allows you to select 4:3 ratio in the OSD settings). Honestly, whilst not 100% clear for text, I found games at 1024x768 actually looked good to me. Any lower than that though, looked poor.
mannycalavera wrote on 2024-11-19, 12:22:A 286 or even a 8088 may not be strictly essential using tricks to slow down a mmx, but if you want to delve into the huge amount of software from the 80s, I find it more comfortable and genuine to use a 286 that cover almost all dos games from 1981 until 1991 (en even in this case is needed to deal with the first 4,7 mhz sensitive games)
It also depends on the country, In Spain there are many own games that, although they were poor conversions of 8-bit microcomputers, have their nostalgic charm, and it is very difficult to adjust the speed in a mmx. There are also bootable games in which modifying the speed of the computer is less easy. In short, using 7 computers and going through eras, I find it more useful to have a 286 for games before 1991.
I am sure you are correct. I found quite a few games that I couldn't slow down my MMX enough to play. Having said that though, the games that I have nostalgia for all worked fine. I do want to try some of the older games, but I think perhaps I will resort to DOSBOX for those.
douglar wrote on 2024-11-19, 13:12:I think the difficult here for the OP is that 1) He doesn't have a personal attachment to computers older than a Pentium and 2) he wants a PS/2 mouse that works with his KVM switch
Neither of those are insurmountable, but they can be legit impediments.
Well I do feel some nostalgia for the 286 hardware, as that was my first PC. But it turns out that the main games I played on that PC do actually work on my Pentium MMX machine. But, yes, my KVM only supporting PS/2 does limit me in how far back I can go.
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-11-19, 15:48:Well I do feel some nostalgia for the 286 hardware, as that was my first PC. But it turns out that the main games I played on that PC do actually work on my Pentium MMX machine. But, yes, my KVM only supporting PS/2 does limit me in how far back I can go.
Oh! In that case, is the answer a PS/2 model 30 ?
I have an IBM PS/2 Model 30, and it indeed has an 8086 and works great with PS/2 mice and keyboards. I’ve even tried my 2023 Unicomp New Model M keyboard, PS/2 variant, and it works. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work with my Belkin KVM. All my other PS/2 pcs work with that KVM.
Be aware these machines can be a bit tricky. Mostly because of proprietary floppy connectors and the fact you need the floppy to initialize the cmos if it’s been cleared. I use a 1.44mb more modern floppy drive (works as a 720k) with a custom connector adapter. I also have a xtide bios enabled cf ide adapter acting as a hard drive. Works well, but I got lucky in the only issues were the hard drive and floppy drive. Even the original rechargeable battery still works and retains charge.
So yeah that can work with PS/2 stuff, just not likely with a KVM
Correction, all my other PS/2 peripheral capable pcs work with my Belkin KVM. I only own the one PS/2 PC 🙂
