pixel_workbench wrote on 2024-05-07, 19:38:
Well, does period correct encompass what people actually bought that year? Because by late 2000, slot1 440bx was old news, as was the 100mhz fsb. If you were still running that platform, it was probably something like a Celeron 533a overclocked to 800mhz, or if you had just bought a Dell, maybe a 800mhz P3 on a 440bx. Otherwise, enthusiasts were typically going for the cheaper and faster AMD Athlon.
If in late 2000 you told someone that you just bought the fastest most expensive 100mhz fsb P3 for your 440bx, you would have probably gotten some funny looks.
I know this exactly, and i already built an 1400mhz athlon for mid 2001, but it is terribly noisy and hot even with later, non period correct coolers/psu. So, athlon dropped.
100mhz could be a valid point, because how i mentioned - and it was the same scenario for me in 2000/2001 too - i need isa bus for my gus, and there are two options:
* use bx with 100mhz fsb
* use via
Currently i work on that, which would be the better option, prios:
1. p3b + 1000/100 slot1 + gf2 ultra for late 2000 => no cpu
2. cubx4 +1000/133 + gf2 ultra for late 2000 => in progress
3. p3b + 1100/100 slotket + gf3 for mid 2001 => in progress, but not really a top pc, too much compromise for 2001
4. apollo pro 133t + tualatin + geforce3 for early 2002 => i will build it, but out of the scope, i want a pre winxp pc, and also not a top pc
Previous builds to cover the win98 era:
1. kt7a + athlon 1400 + gf3 for mid 2001 => hot and noisy
2. p3b + 1000/133 slot1 + gf2gts for mid 2000 => works well, but i do not want to overclock a retro pc
3. P3b + 800/100 slot1 + gf256 ddr for early 2000 => it is ok, but the analogue output of the gf256 is not the best, and could be faster
4. P3b + 700/100 + gf256 sdr for late 1999 => slow for 32 bit gaming in 2000
5. P3b + 600/100 + tnt2 ultra for mid 1999 => slow
