For that era, 64MB to 128MB would be a good amount of RAM.

Windows games of that era typically only needed 16MB of RAM with 32MB usually being 'recommended'.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-11-17, 00:43:

For that era, 64MB to 128MB would be a good amount of RAM.

For some k6-II+/K6-III and slower K7 and also slower pentium II/III i go up to 256mb, 128mb would also be good for me. 64mb i would go with older socket7 cpus. Its not only about cpus, some motherboard work well only up to 64mb ram, like intel 430tx motherboards.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-11-17, 00:43:

For that era, 64MB to 128MB would be a good amount of RAM.

Windows games of that era typically only needed 16MB of RAM with 32MB usually being 'recommended'.

Oh nice, so it would run fine early 3D games like Tomb Raider, Duke Nukem 3D etc? Of course with good gpu in combination.

Studiostriver wrote on 2024-11-17, 01:06:

Oh nice, so it would run fine early 3D games like Tomb Raider, Duke Nukem 3D etc? Of course with good gpu in combination.

Yes, an early Pentium II system would be more than enough for games like Tomb Raider and Duke 3D.

I wouldn't worry about your board's 384MB limit being a problem with Windows 95 and era games.

Check out leonardo's 2020s Win95 Setup Guide post for some good info/guidance- Windows 95 setup guide for the 2020's

For a 98SE system, I would probably say that 128 megs is plenty - in fact, back in the day, 128 megs was too much RAM - you could multitask too much and run out of 'system resources' within 20 minutes. If you had 128+ megs of RAM in 2000, you were running away from 98SE to Win2000 (and then needing more RAM 3 months later).

There was a big, big, big dip in the price of RAM around 2000-2001. Before then, well... RAM was scarce. I'd say 64 megs was a very very serious amount in, say, 1998.

The only thing that might make me rethink that is if there are some games from, say, 2001-2 that don't work on XP. Those might need more RAM. But your typical ~1996-1998 9x software should run fine on 32 megs or less...

Studiostriver wrote on 2024-11-17, 01:06:

Of course with good gpu in combination.

'Good gpu' is a bit of an anachronism. The first 'GPU' in the modern sense is arguably the 3dfx Voodoo which launched in 1996. And the Voodoo/Voodoo 2 were 3D-only cards. If you were a serious gamer and/or you could convince your parents to spend the money on one, you had one of those...

Then AGP starts hitting the market in late 1997, you start to see some combined 2D/3D graphics cards, the TNT/TNT2 are the first to really get noticed, and eventually you get to the first chip referred to as a 'GPU', the GeForce 256 in 2000.

Many, many games from the 1995-2000 period did not use 3D-accelerated graphics. The ones that did... also had an option for a software renderer. You could not make money selling games unless 'kids' could play them on the family computer, and most of those family computers would not have had a 3D accelerator until the late 1990s for people buying expensive computers.

(Note: I am not sure something like the ATI Rage II+ that was ubiquitously soldered on boards for retail systems was particularly good at being a 3D accelerator. My gut tells me no, but maybe I was wrong about that...)

To simplify the GPU situation, I'd go with a Riva TNT and Voodoo2 (or Voodoo2 SLI) combination. This would be era appropriate for a Pentium II / 440LX build.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-11-17, 01:23:

To simplify the GPU situation, I'd go with a Riva TNT and Voodoo2 (or Voodoo2 SLI) combination. This would be era appropriate for a Pentium II / 440LX build.

Nice, that is what i would do if i ever venture to there into getting another retro computer. 😀 So far i use Pentium 3 with Tualatin 1.4ghz and have wonderful experience with most 98 games, the only downfall was that my ATI 9600 XT card died literaly after month of usage, so you never know with these old computers when any component will fail. I revert back to Asus 9250 till i get proper replacement.

If i ever decide get me into Pentium 2 it would be to make it for older games from 95/DOS era i guess, and possible to experience Voodoo cards. This seller has pretty good configuration.

CPU Type Intel Pentium II, 266 MHz
Motherboard Name FIC VL-601
Motherboard Chipset Intel 82440LX/EX
System Memory 128 MB (SDRAM) 64x32x32
3D Accelerator nVIDIA RIVA TNT2 M64

Many Bothans wrote on 2024-11-17, 01:09:

I wouldn't worry about your board's 384MB limit being a problem with Windows 95 and era games.

Check out leonardo's 2020s Win95 Setup Guide post for some good info/guidance- Windows 95 setup guide for the 2020's

Thanks you mister, gonna read it know.

Voodoo cards are overrated.

I wouldn't bother unless one drops into your lap, or there is a game you MUST play and it ONLY works on voodoo.

I think Radeon 9250 still has the nifty error diffusion dithering of 16-bit color that was not carried on with the DirectX 9 cards. So try playing some D3D games in 16-bit color depth for fun. (9250 is related to Radeon 8500)

Also, for Windows games that look best with Glide or are Glide-only, you can try Zeckensack's Glide Wrapper. It works with Win98 and a DirectX 8 class card is a good minimum for it.

Studiostriver wrote on 2024-11-17, 02:04:

[...] […]
Show full quote

[...]

Nice, that is what i would do if i ever venture to there into getting another retro computer. 😀 So far i use Pentium 3 with Tualatin 1.4ghz and have wonderful experience with most 98 games, the only downfall was that my ATI 9600 XT card died literaly after month of usage, so you never know with these old computers when any component will fail. I revert back to Asus 9250 till i get proper replacement.

If i ever decide get me into Pentium 2 it would be to make it for older games from 95/DOS era i guess, and possible to experience Voodoo cards. This seller has pretty good configuration.

CPU Type Intel Pentium II, 266 MHz
Motherboard Name FIC VL-601
Motherboard Chipset Intel 82440LX/EX
System Memory 128 MB (SDRAM) 64x32x32
3D Accelerator nVIDIA RIVA TNT2 M64

Note that for DOS there actually is such a thing as too much RAM. In particular some games do memory size detection that fails of you have vastly too much. This can happen with over 16MB but really becomes a problem over 64MB. No DOS game sensibly uses over 16MB by the way.

You can usually work around it with settings but it's good to be aware of the possibility.

Now, if the system also has to run Win95 you need enough for that. But no need to go crazy. A high-end system in mid 1998 (i.e. at the very end of Win95 era) had 64MB, back in 1995 at launch, 16MB would have been a lot and I have suffered it installed on less capable machines (someone upgraded 486DX33 with 4MB to Win95 in uni computer rooms in 1996... That was pure suffering 😦 ). In the day the theoretical memory (and caching) limits of the hardware were utterly irrelevant - you couldn't possibly afford enough RAM to approach them and even if you did, no gaming software used it fully. 64MB us the sweet spot for a DOS+Win95 system and I challenge you to notice any difference at all vs 128 or even 256MB RAM.

luckybob wrote on 2024-11-17, 05:50:

Voodoo cards are overrated.

I wouldn't bother unless one drops into your lap, or there is a game you MUST play and it ONLY works on voodoo.

I don’t think especially V1-V3 cards are overrated as products, it is only when considering the current prices and it seems that many people are willing to pay the premium. It is completely their choice to do so, but I certainly wouldn’t pay such sums of money of these either, but then again I have few Voodoo cards I have managed to snatch quite cheaply during the last few years.

The thing is that for many 3D games in the late 90s they are the best solution. Often games which had also D3D renderer or got it through patch look like a** compared to glide equivalent. Last such game I tested was Jane’s F-15.

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2024-11-17, 11:06:

luckybob wrote on 2024-11-17, 05:50:

Voodoo cards are overrated.

I wouldn't bother unless one drops into your lap, or there is a game you MUST play and it ONLY works on voodoo.

I don’t think especially V1-V3 cards are overrated as products, it is only when considering the current prices and it seems that many people are willing to pay the premium. It is completely their choice to do so, but I certainly wouldn’t pay such sums of money of these either, but then again I have few Voodoo cards I have managed to snatch quite cheaply during the last few years.

The thing is that for many 3D games in the late 90s they are the best solution. Often games which had also D3D renderer or got it through patch look like a** compared to glide equivalent. Last such game I tested was Jane’s F-15.

The problems I have with the Voodoos is that they merely have mainstream titles available.
Things like car racing games, first person shooters, sports games etc.
All those indie games and simulations and less popular genres don't support Glide, but use GDI or DirectX. Or OpenGL, maybe.
That's why I have not much use for my Voodoo 1 and 2 here. The Voodoo game library and me don't match. 😞
The closest that comes to mind that's interesting are Tomb Raider and Descent.
But Descent can play nice on a S3 Virge or in software rendering, as well.

croc, pandemonium 1/2, montezuma's return are some games that don't fall under those categories.

for descent (2), what they needed to do is have colored lighting like the playstation version. as it is, you get more clarity with 640x480, but it's too washed out and clinical looking for my taste.

I think the voodoo 1 is overrated (in retrospect). Obviously at the time it came out it was revolutionary but in hindsight it wasn't until the V2 that we really got to what I would personally consider playable FPS on most things

Yeah, I'd have a V1 for screwing around with on a period correct setup, but for broad spectrum "last half of the 90s" V2 does a lot better. I also don't rate V4 V5 all that high, when by the time they were around, games didn't need a Voodoo to look good and have framerate, DX had caught up, 32bit framerates had caught up.

But don't look at TNT and TNT2 prices now and think, it's a quarter the price, so only quarter as good as contemporary Voodoos. No, they were neck and neck on everything that wasn't voodoo specific, and often within sight on DX or OGL when there was a title on multiple API. They are a quarter the price because there was ten times as many made at least. For big DX6 only titles, they were probably a better choice.

But yah, 128MB is very generous for this era on 9x.

I remember coming across something, an early DX title, trying to run it on the TP 380D, had 96MB in it, and it had an overflow error on RAM detection at 64MB, so it told me I didn't have enough RAM to run the game. IDK if it was just that stupid title, or whether that happened on others. May have been a demo that had it fixed on release, or had a patch later.

auron wrote on 2024-11-17, 13:35:

croc, pandemonium 1/2, montezuma's return are some games that don't fall under those categories.

for descent (2), what they needed to do is have colored lighting like the playstation version. as it is, you get more clarity with 640x480, but it's too washed out and clinical looking for my taste.

I was thinking of Croc, in fact! 😃 Thanks for tip with the others, too!

Personally, what I would have liked to see were games in the style of Klonoa, Panzer Dragoon or Fury³. Or ports of Alone in the Dark, Magic Carpet.
Or a 3D version of Battle Chess, maybe, hah!

That being said, I don’t mean to be unfair.
The Voodoo drivers on Windows have limited support for Direct3D (v3 or v5?) and OpenGL (miniGL), as long as the game runs full-screen. Or so I think. Could be wrong.
It's just that it's not a main feature, other graphic cards might be better suited for this.

BitWrangler wrote on 2024-11-17, 15:18:

Yeah, I'd have a V1 for screwing around with on a period correct setup, but for broad spectrum "last half of the 90s" V2 does a lot better. I also don't rate V4 V5 all that high, when by the time they were around, games didn't need a Voodoo to look good and have framerate, DX had caught up, 32bit framerates had caught up.

What I really appreciate about the Voodoo 1 is that it was sort of the 3D standard on DOS.
I mean, there were others like S3 Virge 325, Matrox and so on, but the Voodoo 1 (and 2) was as popular/legendary for 3D as the ET4000AX was for 2D.
Insofar is it really nice to have around.