Optimal builds for each era?
Posted by GenTenStation@reddit | vintagecomputing | View on Reddit | 19 comments
Last night I pieced together a Windows XP PC using parts I had laying around. I ended up using an Athlon II X4 640 (which came from my first ever PC build back in 2010) and a Nvidia Quadro K600 (I have 20 of these in a box)
I also have a Windows 98 build and a modern one, but I was thinking, what would be the optimal era appropriate hardware to cover the best compatibility from each era of PC gaming? This is focused on DOS/Windows gaming as I have old Macs and Atari's, Commodores etc.
I was trying to research this and found there are 3 main DOS evolutionary steps based on graphics. The 80s CGA era, the transitional EGA era where games seem to be CPU clock specific, and the post 1993 VGA era. This would lead up to the Win9x era that was 95-01 and the XP era that was 01-09 and then the modern era.
The obvious answer seems to be an IBM PC for CGA, a 386 build for EGA and a 486 for VGA, but I am not very familiar with hardware prior to the late 90s. What would you all suggest for CPU/GPU combinations?
nonexistentnight@reddit
Tech changed so rapidly in the 80s through 90s that it's nearly impossible to make a one-size-fits-all machine. Many games had enhanced features that only work with specific kinds of hardware. The classic example would be DOS games with MIDI sound, but you also had stuff like early 3D games using the 3dfx specific API Glide, support for the right version of DirectX, or Aureal Vortex for positional sound. So getting the optimal machine is almost game specific.
Generally speaking, I think the hardware that can cover the greatest range is a Super Socket 7 board running a K6 CPU. You can run an AGP graphics card that has good DOS compatibility, have PCI slots for an early Windows sound card, and ISA slots for DOS sound compatability. There's utilities to throttle the CPU speed over a wide enough range that you can play stuff like Wing Commander without an issue.
The go-to resource for all this IMO is Phil's Computer Lab.
gnntech@reddit
Might be easier to group by CPU data bus. I would go:
8-bit (XT class machines including the Tandy/PCjr.)
16-bit (covers AT through 286)
32-bit (covers 386 through Pentium 4)
64-bit (modern CPUs)
Doing it by video card is not always accurate because you can put a VGA and sound card in an XT-class machine.
GenTenStation@reddit (OP)
Honestly this was my original approach to this. It was only after researching it that I shifted towards graphics standards as it seemed to be what others who tried to do this were doing. The end goal was to build/own PCs that are natively compatible with the games of their era.
So in that aspect I would need an 8 bit machine and a 16 bit one. For 32 bit I have my Win98 and WinXP builds. And then of course for modern 64 bit I have both a Linux based modern PC and a Steam Deck as well as a Win10 PC that is inside a MAME cabinet I built (Win11 can piss off)
2raysdiver@reddit
PC Gamer Magazine in the 1990s and through most of the 2000s had an article on what they would build in three price categories, entry-level, mid-range, and high-end. When it started, it was one article a month with a lot of details about why they chose specific components for that specific build category, hitting all three categories once a quarter and they'd rotate through the build categories. It developed into a monthly article with a list of specific components for each category and overall reasoning but not the detailed component by component reasoning in the previous one-category-a-quarter articles. After a few yeas of the monthly "Here's the build list for each of the three categories", they were seeing a lot of repetition of builds from month to month, maybe only changing a component or two, the went back to the quarterly rotation approach.
Anyhow, you can find old copies of PC Gamer online that would give you an accurate list of components for a PC of any of the eras in which those articles were published. I think it started as part of Tim's Tech Corner, but ended up as part of the monthly "The Hard Stuff" section.
https://archive.org/details/UneditedPCGamer_marktrade/
DAN-attag@reddit
Pentium III will cover MS-DOS and Windows 9x. It can run AGP, PCI and ISA devices. In case if game is speed sensitive, unfortunately you won't get turbo button, but Pentium III(especially Katmai) can be underclocked by multiplier and front side bus and you can disable all caches to make it much slowerÂ
Sample_And_Hold@reddit
I'm quite sure all Pentium III CPUs had locked multipliers.
MWink64@reddit
Even the Pentium 133 was multiplier-locked.
DrNick42@reddit
This. If you want the least hassle option, this is the way to go and is a very versatile system.
Sample_And_Hold@reddit
The "EGA era" was quite short-lived, as most people just couldn't justify the price of an EGA card+monitor (they were still pretty expensive). At least in my neck of the woods, by the time the 386 was popular and Windows 3.x was taking over (around 1991), almost everyone had a VGA monitor, either color or gray scale. Even my last XT before that had a "cheap" 12" gray VGA monitor (which cost me around $200).
GenTenStation@reddit (OP)
I was finding that as well and considered keeping it at 2 Eras based around pre and post Win 3.x. One person broke it up into 5 eras, which seemed excessive.
Sample_And_Hold@reddit
Yes, pre/post Windows3.x would be the best way to describe it and it was the AMD 386DX 40 that finally made it possible for everyone to afford a computer that could run Windows "decently".
AdministrativeHost15@reddit
I had a Tandy 386-SX in the late 1990's and remember being frustrated that the VGA video card was quickly obolete with games requiring SVGA.
Don't forget to get a 3dfx Voodoo card. Maybe for the 486 or Pentium 1 box.
Steelejoe@reddit
I like the breakdown you have. My memories for PCs around then were mostly homework related, but I remember having an S3 card in my 486 for gaming. In the 8086/CGA era I had CGA and monochrome monitors because you could run both at the same time with the right software. My XT had an IBM CGA adapter but I am sure there were better cards out there. I only had a 386 for work and it can with integrated graphics on the motherboard IIRC. It was a tiny pizza box model so only had 1 or 2 slots on a riser.
GenTenStation@reddit (OP)
I do love a good pizza box case. I never heard of S3 before, so I will look into it
Sample_And_Hold@reddit
S3, besides Trident, were probably the most common chips for VLB and PCI video cards throughout the early nineties.
GenTenStation@reddit (OP)
That explains it. My intro to computers was in the late 90s. Or more accurately 99
techstoa@reddit
Back in the CGA era, there was also Tandy graphics. My old Tandy 1000 could do CGA and TGA.
GenTenStation@reddit (OP)
That helps a lot, I kinda remember hearing about TGA somewhere. It looks like TGA was closer to EGA in terms of color. So the best bet for DOS Era 1 is probably something Tandy based
Cool_Dark_Place@reddit
As someone who had a Tandy 1000 in the mid/late '80s... it'll be a pretty good choice. I think TGA is basically CGA with a little extra video RAM so it can display all of it's 16 colors at once in low resolution (essentially the PCjr's graphics mode, as well). It gives an end result that is pretty similar EGA, plus it's fully CGA compatible. Plus, the sound is definitely a step up than the regular IBM PC "beep." Only issue may be the slow 4.77Mhz 8088 processor will struggle a bit with games from the late '80s, though most will still be playable.