You want to go from 1994-2003? That's a wide spread. What you're looking at is probably Socket 370 Pentium III Tualatin with a 2003-era Nvidia card, and using the (hopefully) single ISA slot on your motherboard for a Sound Blaster AWE64.

keenmaster486 wrote on 2025-06-05, 15:05:

You want to go from 1994-2003? That's a wide spread. What you're looking at is probably Socket 370 Pentium III Tualatin with a 2003-era Nvidia card, and using the (hopefully) single ISA slot on your motherboard for a Sound Blaster AWE64.

the Tualatin is to slow for hit and run or I would still be using one. I don't need a ISA slot ether, I tested all the dos games I have and they work fine on a SB live.

thanks for the advice btw

While experimenting with my 440bx pentium 3 build (specs here: Show off your main / most frequently used retro rig ) I found a cutoff point for dos games, and that's around the year 1996. Some games like Dune 2 (1993) or Warcraft (1994) will run on this machine as is, but others from the same years will not. Stargunner is a scrolling shooter from 1996 - Runtime error R6003 on some faster machines - 500mhz and faster. Descent (1995) will run way too fast on anything faster then 500mhz and become borderline unplayable. It becomes playable using slowdown software like CPUSPD. Jazz Jackrabbit (1994) requires patching with TPpatch.exe since it suffers from the Runtime 200 error on a CPU faster then a 200MHz pentium. Lotus III The ultimate challenge (1993) refuses to start, throwing an "out of memory error" until I slow the PC down via CPUSPD to around 386 levels (cpu throttled to 1/8 speed, L2 cache off). Dyna blaster (1990) refuses to run regardless of settings and slowdown. It will generally start but the image will be garbled. If I slow the PC down via CPUSPD it refuses to take any keyboard input in levels, but keyboard does work in the menu.

What I'm trying to say is that with such a fast PC, you will realistically be very limited regarding dos games. Win9x games will all run fine.

In my opinion the best way of going around these issues is having 2 machines - one for dos (socket 5/7 pentium + slowdown utility like cpuspd // super socket 7 + setmul.exe // socket 370 VIA C3 + setmul.exe) and one for win9x. They can both be setup at a single desk, using a single keyboard / mouse / monitor via a KVM to save space.

Socket3 wrote on 2025-06-05, 16:30:

While experimenting with my 440bx pentium 3 build (specs here: Show off your main / most frequently used retro rig ) I found a cutoff point for dos games, and that's around the year 1996. Some games like Dune 2 (1993) or Warcraft (1994) will run on this machine as is, but others from the same years will not. Stargunner is a scrolling shooter from 1996 - Runtime error R6003 on some faster machines - 500mhz and faster. Descent (1995) will run way too fast on anything faster then 500mhz and become borderline unplayable. It becomes playable using slowdown software like CPUSPD. Jazz Jackrabbit (1994) requires patching with TPpatch.exe since it suffers from the Runtime 200 error on a CPU faster then a 200MHz pentium. Lotus III The ultimate challenge (1993) refuses to start, throwing an "out of memory error" until I slow the PC down via CPUSPD to around 386 levels (cpu throttled to 1/8 speed, L2 cache off). Dyna blaster (1990) refuses to run regardless of settings and slowdown. It will generally start but the image will be garbled. If I slow the PC down via CPUSPD it refuses to take any keyboard input in level, but keyboard does work in the menu.

What I'm trying to say is that with such a fast PC, you will realistically be very limited regarding dos games. Win9x games will all run fine.

odd, I never had a problem playing most of those games with a 1.4ghz piii. I never understood the to fast of a PC folks. Every time I hear people saying dos games will run to fast on faster systems I'm thinking "but I played that game on a P3 or 4 just fine. "

Granted 440bx can be rather buggy with faster CPUs and FSB. it was never really met to be used with a coppermine or Tualatin CPU or over 100mhz fsb.

There's always a compromise when trying to build a 'one size fits all' retro PC. My suggestion for your 1994-2003 target range would be a VIA KT133A socket A board with universal AGP and an ISA slot, though they're not always the easiest to find.

A good one can run pretty much any Duron/Athlon/Athlon XP CPU (although faster ones will end up underclocked due to the FSB limitation), any AGP or PCI graphics card and almost any ISA sound card. With a multiplier-unlocked Athlon XP (either with a pin mod or an XP-M/Geode low-power version) you can underclock to 300-500MHz, and disabling L1 cache with Setmul will get you down to approximately 486 speeds.

sfryers wrote on 2025-06-05, 16:59:

There's always a compromise when trying to build a 'one size fits all' retro PC. My suggestion for your 1994-2003 target range would be a VIA KT133A socket A board with universal AGP and an ISA slot, though they're not always the easiest to find.

A good one can run pretty much any Duron/Athlon/Athlon XP CPU (although faster ones will end up underclocked due to the FSB limitation), any AGP or PCI graphics card and almost any ISA sound card. With a multiplier-unlocked Athlon XP (with the pin mod or an XP-M/Geode low-power version) you can underclock to 300-500MHz, and disabling L1 cache with Setmul will get you down to approximately 486 speeds.

I was thinking of a KT133A board like the kt7a but they are harder to come by so that is what lead me to look for something a tick newer. That and I know a few of the newer games I play do run well on my 1.4ghz Piii so a KT133A would hardly be a bump in speed.
I'm not into down clocking or slowing the system down, I never understood why people brother with that or think games will run to fast on newer systems.

ideally I would grab a 865 or 875 board and call it a day but the lack of support for the sound blaster live's dos drivers on that chip set makes it a no go. what abut the Aureal vortex or newer via chipset for 478, 939 and 754 ? I seen the Aureal vortex used in dos on one of phils videos with newer via chip set boards and it seemed to work fine.

If you don't care about the ISA slot, then there are much more widely available socket A boards (KT266, KT333, KT400, KT600), most of which will give you the ability to use multiplier-unlocked Athlon XPs. With a pin-modded XP 2500+ I can set any CPU speed from 500MHz to 2200MHz using Setmul.

sfryers wrote on 2025-06-05, 17:25:

If you don't care about the ISA slot, then there are much more widely available socket A boards (KT266, KT333, KT400, KT600), most of which will give you the ability to use multiplier-unlocked Athlon XPs. With a pin-modded XP 2500+ I can set any CPU speed from 500MHz to 2200MHz using Setmul.

that was kind my thought. I just know some chipset don't like the sound blaster live's dos driver like anything 865 and newer or any nforce chip set. Do via chip sets all play well with the pci dos drivers ?

old school gamer man wrote on 2025-06-05, 17:04:

sfryers wrote on 2025-06-05, 16:59:

There's always a compromise when trying to build a 'one size fits all' retro PC. My suggestion for your 1994-2003 target range would be a VIA KT133A socket A board with universal AGP and an ISA slot, though they're not always the easiest to find.

A good one can run pretty much any Duron/Athlon/Athlon XP CPU (although faster ones will end up underclocked due to the FSB limitation), any AGP or PCI graphics card and almost any ISA sound card. With a multiplier-unlocked Athlon XP (with the pin mod or an XP-M/Geode low-power version) you can underclock to 300-500MHz, and disabling L1 cache with Setmul will get you down to approximately 486 speeds.

I was thinking of a KT133A board like the kt7a but they are harder to come by so that is what lead me to look for something a tick newer. That and I know a few of the newer games I play do run well on my 1.4ghz Piii so a KT133A would hardly be a bump in speed.

There is a considerable difference between a KT133A build with say a 2600+ AXDA2600DKV3C (2133 MHz) and a 1.4GHz Tualatin. Clock speed aside, there is a difference between a 1.4GHz tualatin + i815 / VIA 695T and a 1.4Ghz Thunderbird / Athlon XP 1600+, and that is due to the Athlon's improved EV6 bus protocol witch is twice as fast clock per clock. I've actually been meaning to document this performance difference in a benchmark suite- hopefully I'll have the time to do it at one point.

This is most noticeable with 2002-2003 and onwards games witch SHOUD run perfectly on a 1 to 1.4GHz pentium 3, but don't. Star Wars Jedi Academy, Return to Castle Wolfenstein are relevant examples. The game is perfectly playable, but if you crank up the resolution and eye candy, even with a fast video card it won't be smooth on socket 370. Using a 133Mhz CPU helps - overclocking the front side bus to 166MHz or more helps even more. In fact I remember getting RTCW running buttery smooth, maxed out @ 1600x1200 with some AA on a Radeon 9800 and a overclocked SL6JL 1.2Ghz Tualatin running at 166x9 on my ECS P5SAT. I was trying to get a pentium 3 as close as possible to a pentium-M banias at the same frequency.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/355/6

Even earlier games are affected in some cases - prime examples being Dungeon Keeper 2 and Homeworld. Both have very modest system requirements (233-266 Pentium 2 minimum, 8mb d3d compliant video card) but in practice run quite poorly in certain scenarios. Examples are the Gardens of Kadesh and Cathedral of Kadesh missions in homeworld. Due to the massive number of enemy ships and projectiles on screen at one given time, these missions will run poorly on computers much faster then the minimum system requirements cited by Relic. In fact the slowest PC that will maintain 30 fps in these missions is a 933Mhz pentium 3. Dungeon keeper 2 is even worse. I don't know why, but from mission 4 on, as well as in pet dungeons, the game runs like an absolute DOG when lots of creatures or big rooms are on screen. I find dungeon keeper 2 runs best (no stuttering regardless of large rooms / nr of creatures, 60 fps) on an athlon XP 2000+ / pentium 4 2400MHz.

old school gamer man wrote on 2025-06-05, 17:04:

I'm not into down clocking or slowing the system down, I never understood why people brother with that or think games will run to fast on newer systems.

Then I suppose the affected games are not among your favorite DOS games - in witch case you can easily get away with 754/939/LGA775 builds - but the games I mentioned - witch happen to be some of my favorites - are speed sensitive, and I just wanted to give you a heads up.

old school gamer man wrote on 2025-06-05, 17:46:

Do via chip sets all play well with the pci dos drivers ?

NForce chipsets are definitely the ones to avoid if you want DOS compatibility. VIA chipsets for socket A work well with every DOS-compatible PCI soundcard I've tried, but I don't claim to have tested every possible combination.

Socket3 wrote on 2025-06-05, 18:57:

This is most noticeable with 2002-2003 and onwards games witch SHOUD run perfectly on a 1 to 1.4GHz pentium 3, but don't. Star Wars Jedi Academy, Return to Castle Wolfenstein are relevant examples. The game is perfectly playable, but if you crank up the resolution and eye candy, even with a fast video card it won't be smooth on socket 370. Using a 133Mhz CPU helps - overclocking the front side bus to 166MHz or more helps even more. In fact I remember getting RTCW running buttery smooth, maxed out @ 1600x1200 with some AA on a Radeon 9800 and a overclocked SL6JL 1.2Ghz Tualatin running at 166x9 on my ECS P5SAT. I was trying to get a pentium 3 as close as possible to a pentium-M banias at the same frequency.

Then I suppose the affected games are not among your favorite DOS games - in witch case you can easily get away with 754/939/LGA775 builds - but the games I mentioned - witch happen to be some of my favorites - are speed sensitive, and I just wanted to give you a heads up.

that was the exact problem I ran into with my 1.4ghz piii

some of the games you listed are games I play to and I never had a problem with them on faster systems. I always been so confused on the whole slowing down the system thing.

sfryers wrote on 2025-06-05, 19:12:

old school gamer man wrote on 2025-06-05, 17:46:

Do via chip sets all play well with the pci dos drivers ?

NForce chipsets are definitely the ones to avoid if you want DOS compatibility. VIA chipsets for socket A work well with every DOS-compatible PCI soundcard I've tried, but I don't claim to have tested every possible combination.

that and anything intel post 845. thanks for the info. I think I know what I could use and what to not use now.

old school gamer man wrote on 2025-06-05, 19:32:

some of the games you listed are games I play to and I never had a problem with them on faster systems. I always been so confused on the whole slowing down the system thing.

No offence but I vehemently doubt that. I know for sure the games I mentioned apart for stargunner (witch works fine on some fast machines but not others) are speed sensitive - in fact it has been extensively documented online. Perhaps it's been a while since you last played them?

If you never ran into "too fast" issues you simple have not played the games that have those. And probably do not need those games. This also removes a lot of soundcard related considerations (as you've mentioned yourself).

I am using AthlonXP 2200+/KT333/1GB/FX5900XT/Audigy 2ZS for seemingly what you describe. It works well for late DOS and 95/98 games, but with XP it becomes insufficient very fast. I could have replaced the CPU with faster one (and you should if you build something like this), but really GPU is the issue here. And going with GeForce 6 brings its own issues - it would make XP games run better, but would not be as compatible with 95/98 games. Something like Radeon 9800XT might be better, but good luck getting that.

But... i am not really trying to run XP games on this - have a different system for those.

Ultimately with what you are trying to do everything is a compromise. Get faster CPU - you can run later games, but lose compatibility with earlier ones. Get newer platform/chipset and lose isa port - the same thing. Newer GPU - the same. There are no perfect solutions to run everything on one system, you can only find some set of compromises acceptable to you specifically based on specifically your set of games.

Socket3 wrote on 2025-06-05, 20:00:

old school gamer man wrote on 2025-06-05, 19:32:

some of the games you listed are games I play to and I never had a problem with them on faster systems. I always been so confused on the whole slowing down the system thing.

No offence but I vehemently doubt that. I know for sure the games I mentioned apart for stargunner (witch works fine on some fast machines but not others) are speed sensitive - in fact it has been extensively documented online. Perhaps it's been a while since you last played them?

i was last playing Descent on a system with a 1.4ghz piii about 3 weeks ago, before I purged my pc collection.
it's actually one of my favorite games. most of the other games people say can't be ran on faster systems I ran in the past on everything from a pii to a core 2. honestly I never understood why people get so worked up over having speed period correct systems.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-06-05, 21:25:

If you never ran into "too fast" issues you simple have not played the games that have those. And probably do not need those gam […]
Show full quote

If you never ran into "too fast" issues you simple have not played the games that have those. And probably do not need those games. This also removes a lot of soundcard related considerations (as you've mentioned yourself).

I am using AthlonXP 2200+/KT333/1GB/FX5900XT/Audigy 2ZS for seemingly what you describe. It works well for late DOS and 95/98 games, but with XP it becomes insufficient very fast. I could have replaced the CPU with faster one (and you should if you build something like this), but really GPU is the issue here. And going with GeForce 6 brings its own issues - it would make XP games run better, but would not be as compatible with 95/98 games. Something like Radeon 9800XT might be better, but good luck getting that.

But... i am not really trying to run XP games on this - have a different system for those.

Ultimately with what you are trying to do everything is a compromise. Get faster CPU - you can run later games, but lose compatibility with earlier ones. Get newer platform/chipset and lose isa port - the same thing. Newer GPU - the same. There are no perfect solutions to run everything on one system, you can only find some set of compromises acceptable to you specifically based on specifically your set of games.

thanks for the advice. how does hit and run play on that system?

I could probably make a few phones calls and get a 9800xt or two but what issues in 9x would a 6800 have? I ran them a time or two in 9x and never ran into problems. other than the lack of the 8 bit fog table thing and tbh I never seen any difference with that on vs off. nothing a voodoo 1 or 2 or wrapper couldn't fix, not that the 9800 supports the 8bit fog stuff