the 440BX will run practically ANY pentium 3 cpu you can throw at it. Some physical modifications will be needed for the tualatins, but it can be done. VIA chipsets should be avoided if possible.

Can't go wrong with that Intel chipset!

I've got a few 440BX boards and then the board in my main win98 machine is an Apollo Pro 133. The ONLY reason I'm really using it vs one of the other boards is because it's the only board I have that'll take the 933mhz 133mhz FSB slot 1 PIII that's in it. Otherwise, I'd be limited to a PIII 550 as the fastest chip I have.

If I had an Intel board that could take the chip or another chip of comparable speed...you get what I'm saying. I'm really only using the thing because I don't have an alternative at the same performance level.

Main downside is AGP issues for that chipset.
Usually can get around them with the last 4in1's like 4.49 (before they turn into Hyperions) and installing the AGP driver manually. Then disabling fastwrites\sideband addressing and setting it to 2x\1x.
Or just use a PCI vcard or AGP 3dfx VB\V3\V4\V5 and sidestep most of that problem entirely.

I'd definetly go the 440BX board as well.

44BX disadvantage: CPU support limited on older boards.
Limited to 66FSB and 100FSB CPU's and Ram.

Via Apollo Pro 133 disadvantage : Graphics card issues when using an AGP graphics card (Rectified with the 4in1 drivers)
Slower and not as compatible as 440BX.
Not as stable as 440BX

I'd only go VIA if you just have to use a 133Mhz CPU and Ram. The Via Apollo Pro also supports up to 1.5GB of ram most of the time which is handy for those running Windows XP. 440BX boards mostly support only up to 1GB of ram. Then again, if you just had to go VIA then you'd be better off using an Intel 815 chipset board. Even the newer 815 boards though are known to not have the performance of the mighty 440BX. They're Intel though and have support for 133FSB and up to 1.5GB just like the VIA boards.

is the "pro133" actually refering to 693a or 694?
i would go with via if its a 694 AND the cpu is 133fsb. 694 is far better than 693a in all aspects, although still not remotely as fast as bx.
if its 693a, all i can suggest is trash it.

If the 440BX satisfies the needs for that system, then I'd use it.
I wouldn't be very interested in the Apollo Pro 133. I can't remember if I've ever used the 133 though, so maybe it's okay.
If that's the Apollo Pro 133A (with the 694X chip part number), then I'd be more in favor of it. 133A has some advantages over Intel, but the plain 133 probably doesn't have as much going for it.
I don't have proof but my impression has been that VIA gradually improved with later chips. Thus far I've only had good experiences with the 133A, even though I love the BX I'm finding the 133A has some appeal.

I had a terrible time on Win98 with an old VIA MVP3 board (when it was current). This made me avoid VIA. But I've realized that the 133A boards I've used haven't given me any problems, at least with WinXP SP2. To some extent I think the chipsets improved, but also I think that over time, the problems with VIA had been identified and smoothed out in drivers. At this point we have more mature drivers than what was available back then. But again, my positive experiences were with the 133A, I don't remember using the 133.

440BX advantages:
-AGP on the BX is always trouble free, it might as well be considered the reference implementation.
People had problems with AGP on VIA, but I wonder how much newer drivers might have fixed this. I personally have had no trouble with AGP on the 133A, but that's with XP SP2 and nVidia 45.23, not Win9x. I don't know what things are like on the original 133 using newer drivers.
-PCI performance is better on the BX. Probably not a big deal for desktop use, but if it's doing a lot of I/O, stick with the BX.
-There might be USB problems on the VIA boards, I'm not sure, haven't tried that out much. 440BX USB definitely works. But if you want USB 2.0, you need a card either way.

There are some advantages to VIA P3 boards, but I think they mainly apply to 133A:
-Many support 512MB per DIMM - the 133A definitely does, the plain 133 might also but I'm not sure. Useless for Win9x/DOS.
-The 133A boards have Universal AGP slots, but the plain 133 and the BX are both 3.3v only. Anything that won't fit a 3.3v slot probably doesn't support Win9x anyway.
-133/133A both support 133MHz bus without any overclocking.
Many BX can also do this, and when doing so the BX is faster than anything. But how well this works depends on the motherboard. You need a board with a 1/4 PCI setting, and not all BX boards have that. A BX @ 133MHz will also overclock the AGP to 89MHz and this can't be fixed. Most nVidia cards of the time period don't seem to mind, but it's something you have to think about in the card selection. From the comments I've read online, it seems it pretty much always works on Geforce1-3, and usually works on Geforce4, but fails on FX5 and later cards. I was 3/3 using 89MHz AGP on a GF2MX, an early GF3, and a Ti4200. I don't know as much about ATI.

That all said, since this is for DOS and Win9x games, the features of the BX are probably plenty sufficient.
If you're targeting a higher specced build, VIA can be worth considering, but if not, use the BX.
You might also want to check which of those boards have options to disable the caches, if you want to slow it way down for DOS games.

http://www.zen26266.zen.co.uk/Chipset.htm some older articles about chipsets.

http://pclinks.xtreemhost.com/chipsets_pentium.htm some comparative data, including 440BX and VIA chipsets. Interesting for supported memory.
I think most points have been made. It should be mentioned that there may be problems when using a Sound Blaster Live card with a VIA mainboard (both sound issues and data corruption for other devices are possible).
There are some fixes for this problem but it seems inconclusive if the problems were totally cured.

Still find it amazing that intel even made the slot1 133fsb cpu`s.
They didn`t support overclocking and they didn`t make a chipset for it either, since bx was 100fsb and 815 was s370.

820 came in slot 1. Not a bad chipset aside from the RDRAM price. Now that I'm thinking about it I think I want a board.

swaaye wrote:

820 came in slot 1. Not a bad chipset aside from the RDRAM price. Now that I'm thinking about it I think I want a board.

There's also 840 with dual RD800 capabilities: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/showdown- … -fsb,170-4.html

Can do SMP too. 😀

obobskivich wrote:

swaaye wrote:

820 came in slot 1. Not a bad chipset aside from the RDRAM price. Now that I'm thinking about it I think I want a board.

There's also 840 with dual RD800 capabilities: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/showdown- … -fsb,170-4.html

Can do SMP too. 😀

I have an 840. FAST board. Intel should have never made the 815 and just released the 840. Yes the 440BX @ 133 is "faster" at games than the 840, but you have to remember; at 133fsb the 440bx is overclocking the agp bus by a good margin. Some video cards did not like this. (I never saw one, but still others weren't so lucky)