I share your Obsession. I have 5 Systems from 486 to FM2+ and the latter runs on Win7 x64. I cant Tell yet if this is a good decision. I love Win7 but the dropping Support for Browsers and Steam makes it hard to run DRM Games on it the legal way. Also WLAN connectivity is hard on the Edge for encryption algo reasons and driver Support and this is going worse over time.

For Win98 I use an athlon XP System. It will loose against edgy Core2 Builds but is fast enough to run all Games ever Released for that OS. I even use XP dual boot (Triple Boot with freedos) on it.

I'd be inclined to go for a faster Socket A Athlon for 98SE, partly because that's what I had the first time round, didn't have a 3DFX though, kicking myself still for not picking up a £5 computer fair junk table Voodoo 3 when I was close to retiring the 3.3V AGP system.
Two possibilities really, maybe put as much CPU power as possible (3.3V AGP limitation) behind your V3 for a more CPU powerful 98.
Or demote it for purely stuff that really needs the Voodoo, and make a fast 98 / lower XP dual to handle the transitional, the max 98 GPU being Radeon 9800 (beta support for some X models) or Nvidia Geforce 6000 series (7000 unofficial) - with the top Nvidia card in your XP main, maybe a 98/XP dual should have AMD - features like table fog etc.

I think the fastest compatible Win98 PC would be Core 2 Duo X6800 on Intel 865 chipset with nVidia Geforce FX 5950 Ultra. By compatible I mean able to run most Win9x games and official drivers for all hardware. Not cheap to find the motherboards now though. Or that GPU.

Alternatively there is ATI X850 XT PE. Considerably faster but less compatible. You can get PCIe variants that work on Win98 SE, which opens up your choice of motherboard platform a bit.

Honestly though, Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 are more than enough for Win9X games. I think not too many Win9x games will allow you to set res to 1600x1200.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-10-08, 17:02:

I think not too many Win9x games will allow you to set res to 1600x1200.

You'd be surprised. Even some games from 1997 like Quake 2 and Tomb Raider 2 can use that resolution, and in 32-bit color depth as well. Talking about the retail games with just the official patches applied, no mods or fan fixes whatsoever.

On topic, I'd suggest an LGA775 system with a PCIe Radeon X800 series card. It's a bit of a hassle to set up, but can provide some really impressive performance. Those cards aren't cheap though. Compatibility shouldn't be much of an issue, since OP already has the Voodoo 3 system for any potentially problematic games.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-10-08, 17:22:

You'd be surprised. Even some games from 1997 like Quake 2 and Tomb Raider 2 can use that resolution, and in 32-bit color depth as well. Talking about the retail games with just the official patches applied, no mods or fan fixes whatsoever.

Does the HUD look ok at those resolutions? I was under the impression that if you could set the resolution high, then the HUD and text would be tiny? I haven't tried. I don't go over 1024x768

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-10-08, 17:44:

Does the HUD look ok at those resolutions? I was under the impression that if you could set the resolution high, then the HUD and text would be tiny? I haven't tried. I don't go over 1024x768

Depends on the game.

Quake 2 and Tomb Raider 2 don't have proper UI scaling, so the icons get tiny. Not much of an issue in TR2 since the HUD is just a health bar, but it is quite noticeable in Q2. However, some later games do have proper UI scaling, even titles from 1998 such as Thief: The Dark Project.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-10-08, 17:53:

Depends on the game.

Quake 2 and Tomb Raider 2 don't have proper UI scaling, so the icons get tiny. Not much of an issue in TR2 since the HUD is just a health bar, but it is quite noticeable in Q2. However, some later games do have proper UI scaling, even titles from 1998 such as Thief: The Dark Project.

Interesting. I should check them out

lilylarceny wrote on 2025-10-08, 16:33:

I could see myself building an earlier DOS/95 PC if it's needed for compatibility or for an ISA AWE64 or something like that. I'm not terribly interested in dual booting, as I have a LOT of old hardware it would be fun to put to use.

You don't need a complete new build for this. If your P3 had an ISA slot it would make for the perfect dos performance pc. The V3 had good support already and Win95 offers no real benefit.
apart from speed sensitive games only other reason I can think of needing a new build is dos glide games that only work properly on a Voodoo 1, eg Interstate 76

lilylarceny wrote on 2025-10-08, 16:33:

What sort of extreme/high power 98SE system would be ideal for playing more demanding Win9X/Me D3D games?

Ideally your XP system. For the few titles that don't work your limiting factor will be the graphics card. GeForce 4Ti or high end Fx is as fast as you go with no compatibility issues, but will probably still struggle with the resolutions you want.
later cards still have official Win98 support but also have compatibly issues. Which games are you having trouble with? maybe you'll get lucky and those games will work fine.
CPU/chipset aren't really going to matter, just as long as it can run whichever GPU you go with.

lilylarceny wrote on 2025-10-08, 16:33:

Would my 3dfx/glide PC be better suited for a high power Win95/DOS or keep it 98SE? Would it have full 3dfx game support, etc/Is there even any reason to run a dedicated Win95 or DOS system?

No benefit of downgrading to Win95. Only reason to run Win95 is for slower computers (say Pentium MMX and below)
A pure dos PC is sometimes necessary for games that speed sensitive, but this will depend on the game what speed it expect.

To give you an idea I can play just about all my games on 2 computers.

P3 600 with GF4 Ti 4800 AGP + Voodoo 3 PCI. Audigy 2 for Windows sound and AWE64 for dos.
Games default to the AGP card unless using the glide API.

Then the XP build which takes over once the P3 starts to struggle.

Don't know of any WIn7/11 incompatibilities but don't really own any games from this era either

chinny22 wrote on 2025-10-08, 23:31:

Ideally your XP system. For the few titles that don't work your limiting factor will be the graphics card. GeForce 4Ti or high e […]
Show full quote

lilylarceny wrote on 2025-10-08, 16:33:

What sort of extreme/high power 98SE system would be ideal for playing more demanding Win9X/Me D3D games?

Ideally your XP system. For the few titles that don't work your limiting factor will be the graphics card. GeForce 4Ti or high end Fx is as fast as you go with no compatibility issues, but will probably still struggle with the resolutions you want.
later cards still have official Win98 support but also have compatibly issues. Which games are you having trouble with? maybe you'll get lucky and those games will work fine.
CPU/chipset aren't really going to matter, just as long as it can run whichever GPU you go with.

Thanks for the reply, helpful info.
To answer you question a few games for sure, a recent game that comes to mind I had a problem with The Longest Journey. The backgrounds are pre-rendered, but the 3d sprites are just totally glitched on the xp system. it runs on my 98 system but it's definitely looked better on a GeForce 2 or other card with better D3D support over the voodoo 3. The Voodoo 3 is kind of weak, imo, tho necessary for glide games. For D3D it feels on par with maybe a TNT/TNT2?

chinny22 wrote on 2025-10-08, 23:31:

No benefit of downgrading to Win95. Only reason to run Win95 is for slower computers (say Pentium MMX and below)

Personally, I would say it's more of a RAM thing. Top half of 486 class is fine on Win98 at same feature level as 95 with 16MB RAM, possibly faster, it's the later bolt ons that screw you up, like IE5 .NET, CPU intensive USB cards etc. On something you can only possibly get 8MB on for some reason, then you want win95 and preferably the floppy version. Lower than 486DX50 though you probably want to stick to 95.

lilylarceny wrote on 2025-10-08, 16:33:

What sort of extreme/high power 98SE system would be ideal for playing more demanding Win9X/Me D3D games? chipset/cpu combo, PCIe display support, max specs, etc so I could comfortably run them at 1600x1200 without frame drops

I personally like the idea of SocketA system with 98/XP dual boot. You can go above that, but you start losing compatibility and have to mess with 98 to make it work.

Also many games from period you mention would run on XP just fine or even better than on 98, given appropriate hardware. I bet if you used an older pci-e GPU in your current XP system you would be able to run many of the stuff you want. Perhaps there is a way to add one and have 2 copies of XP configured to use different cards or something?

Yeah, Socket A is s good choice. Though depending on power draw, it may be an issue to find a modern PSU that will power it. Seeing as the OP wants to build high performance systems I am guessing that would mean running that fastest Socket A CPU and the fastest GPU. Which may require a lot of power on the 5v rail.

Have to admit though, I have not encountered this particular issue. Not sure if the issue has been overblown, or if I have just been lucky.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-10-09, 04:48:

Yeah, Socket A is s good choice. Though depending on power draw, it may be an issue to find a modern PSU that will power it. Seeing as the OP wants to build high performance systems I am guessing that would mean running that fastest Socket A CPU and the fastest GPU. Which may require a lot of power on the 5v rail.

Have to admit though, I have not encountered this particular issue. Not sure if the issue has been overblown, or if I have just been lucky.

Socket A motherboards with 12V VRM do exist and using one of those removes the issue. That's what i am using for my 3200+ Socket A build to avoid messing with vintage PSUs. In case of using such board mainly 12V are used and any modern PSU works. Even if GPU is still mainly 5&3.3V it will not create issues.

The only thing i am not sure about is if boards like this with 98-friendly chipsets exist. Because nforce2 is not a good choice for 98 IMO.

Athlon XP/64 is intended for Windows 98 / early XP era games. Many games may work fine in Windows XP and it should be the preferred OS as Windows 98 is unstable. This is a big advantage over Pentium III which is not fast enough for Windows XP SP3. You would get an Athlon XP/64 if you intend to play those games in higher resolution than Pentium III allows. If you encounter a game that is unstable in Windows XP, you have Windows 98 in dual boot mode as a fallback.

Buy a board with ATX 12V CPU power connector and you won't be facing problems with power supply.

I have a pretty nice ASUS motherboard here with a Socket 939/nForce 4 SLI X16, and another ASUS with nForce 430/6100 - has there been any luck getting either of these configurations to work with WIn98?

lilylarceny wrote on 2025-10-09, 20:52:

I have a pretty nice ASUS motherboard here with a Socket 939/nForce 4 SLI X16, and another ASUS with nForce 430/6100 - has there been any luck getting either of these configurations to work with WIn98?

I dont think there are Win9x drivers for nForce 4. It may work without drivers though. Graphics most likely would require a Radeon of some sort I think. X300/600/x800 series for example.

Speaking of obsession: I also prefer to run games and software on original hardware.
Over the years, that’s led to a bit of a collection: I currently have 16 systems, including my current main PC.

And honestly, I don’t think that number will stop growing anytime soon. 😄

(8088) Commodore PC10-III
(286) SIEMENS SAB80286-16-N
(386) AMD Am386DXL-40
(486) Intel i486DX4-100
(Socket 7) Intel Pentium 200
(Socket 7) Intel Pentium MMX 233
(Super Socket 7) AMD K6-3+ 570
(Slot 1) Intel Pentium II 450
(Socket 370) Intel Pentium III 1000
(Socket 370) Intel Pentium III-S 1400 Tualatin
(Socket 775) Intel Pentium 4 651 HT
(Socket 775) Intel Core2Duo E8600
(Socket 775) Intel Core2Quad Q9650
(Socket 1150) Intel Core i7-4790K
(Socket 1151) Intel Core i7-9700K (WIP)
(Socket AM5) AMD Ryzen 9950X3D

If you're interested in the hardware used in each system, you can check out the specs here:
https://unbit.de/sys/

uniQ wrote on 2025-10-10, 11:00:

Speaking of obsession: I also prefer to run games and software on original hardware. Over the years, that’s led to a bit of a co […]
Show full quote

Speaking of obsession: I also prefer to run games and software on original hardware.
Over the years, that’s led to a bit of a collection: I currently have 16 systems, including my current main PC.

And honestly, I don’t think that number will stop growing anytime soon. 😄

(8088) Commodore PC10-III
(286) SIEMENS SAB80286-16-N
(386) AMD Am386DXL-40
(486) Intel i486DX4-100
(Socket 7) Intel Pentium 200
(Socket 7) Intel Pentium MMX 233
(Super Socket 7) AMD K6-3+ 570
(Slot 1) Intel Pentium II 450
(Socket 370) Intel Pentium III 1000
(Socket 370) Intel Pentium III-S 1400 Tualatin
(Socket 775) Intel Pentium 4 651 HT
(Socket 775) Intel Core2Duo E8600
(Socket 775) Intel Core2Quad Q9650
(Socket 1150) Intel Core i7-4790K
(Socket 1151) Intel Core i7-9700K (WIP)
(Socket AM5) AMD Ryzen 9950X3D

If you're interested in the hardware used in each system, you can check out the specs here:
https://unbit.de/sys/

There's a few on the later half of this like that I am curious what software/games you choose to run on them. Ever since ~2010 it's been impossible to buy anything that isn't on Steam/online DRM service, and all the physical copies are just a disk with a Steam Installer. Now that they've discontinued the steam client for anything older than Win 10, it makes the hardware difficult to use for much of anything. Which is why for me, I am focused on building systems for dos/9x/xp because I can still install an original copy or archived copy and play them regardless.

lilylarceny wrote on 2025-10-12, 21:36:

There's a few on the later half of this like that I am curious what software/games you choose to run on them. Ever since ~2010 it's been impossible to buy anything that isn't on Steam/online DRM service, and all the physical copies are just a disk with a Steam Installer. Now that they've discontinued the steam client for anything older than Win 10, it makes the hardware difficult to use for much of anything. Which is why for me, I am focused on building systems for dos/9x/xp because I can still install an original copy or archived copy and play them regardless.

You can buy DRM free offline installers from GOG.com. Many work on XP and most work on Windows 7