Tetrium wrote:

While all this may be true (and I'm not stating that every single bit of info here is actually true), this has basically nothing […]
Show full quote

While all this may be true (and I'm not stating that every single bit of info here is actually true), this has basically nothing to do with retro computing 😜
Another example would be RDRAM. These days an RDRAM system is seen for what it is and the backstory is of course nice to hear. But for me, the reasons of why RDRAM was hated and frowned upon so much back when it was new, is in itself no reason to me to choose something else over an RDRAM rig.
I care more about the technical properties and less about the marketing ones from back then, it's not relevant to me anymore.

I've build AMD, Intel, Cyrix, NVidia, Ati (and AMD), S3, Rendition, 3DFX, who cares about marketing from back then? It's about what I can accomplish with these parts right now that matters to me.

I used to really 'hate' netburst...till I got convinced to simply try a Northwood for myself and it was a really nice experience (except for FX5900U in FEAR, I shall not ever forget that experience 🤣!).

What you mean with that what is the deal with the high end GEforce FX5900 series ? As i have FX5950 Ultra and im planning to use it on my Slot 1 tualatin machine, some guy did speak once to me that he did have the FX5950U and that card did some damage to his MB, and that will not be nice, as i don`t want my precious MB to die...

About the bad processors and architectures, well AMD got most of the time the better architecture, but bad support, bad luck, and others. This is why the AthlonXP did not get more love then the stupid Pentium IV, as the Athlon did have superior architectures, that Athlon on 2GHz was as fast as Pentium IV on 3GHz... Also they did have 3Dnow instructions that was better then intel ones, but no one did use them, and the lack of proper SSE1 (as the ones Athlons have many says are just emulation..) total lack of SSE2 and SSE3 did make these great chips much obsolete then Pentium IV...

I've heard about the "no-cache celerons" before. What a silly move. I mean i understand they wanted to save money, but there is a certain level of performance even the most basic of user needs.
Regardless
I'm thinking i might pair this with the Voodoo 3 3500 i have, does that sound like a good choice?

Jupiter-18 wrote:

I've heard about the "no-cache celerons" before. What a silly move. I mean i understand they wanted to save money, but there is a certain level of performance even the most basic of user needs.

They left the L1 cache alone so that basic performance was still there. The result was quite disappointing, it's true, but not as tragic as you might think. Just try to disable the L2 cache of any P2 or P3 you have and see what you get.

Radical Vision wrote:

Tetrium wrote:

While all this may be true (and I'm not stating that every single bit of info here is actually true), this has basically nothing […]
Show full quote

While all this may be true (and I'm not stating that every single bit of info here is actually true), this has basically nothing to do with retro computing 😜
Another example would be RDRAM. These days an RDRAM system is seen for what it is and the backstory is of course nice to hear. But for me, the reasons of why RDRAM was hated and frowned upon so much back when it was new, is in itself no reason to me to choose something else over an RDRAM rig.
I care more about the technical properties and less about the marketing ones from back then, it's not relevant to me anymore.

I've build AMD, Intel, Cyrix, NVidia, Ati (and AMD), S3, Rendition, 3DFX, who cares about marketing from back then? It's about what I can accomplish with these parts right now that matters to me.

I used to really 'hate' netburst...till I got convinced to simply try a Northwood for myself and it was a really nice experience (except for FX5900U in FEAR, I shall not ever forget that experience 🤣!).

What you mean with that what is the deal with the high end GEforce FX5900 series ? As i have FX5950 Ultra and im planning to use it on my Slot 1 tualatin machine, some guy did speak once to me that he did have the FX5950U and that card did some damage to his MB, and that will not be nice, as i don`t want my precious MB to die...

About the bad processors and architectures, well AMD got most of the time the better architecture, but bad support, bad luck, and others. This is why the AthlonXP did not get more love then the stupid Pentium IV, as the Athlon did have superior architectures, that Athlon on 2GHz was as fast as Pentium IV on 3GHz... Also they did have 3Dnow instructions that was better then intel ones, but no one did use them, and the lack of proper SSE1 (as the ones Athlons have many says are just emulation..) total lack of SSE2 and SSE3 did make these great chips much obsolete then Pentium IV...

The FX5900U worked as it should...and it shouldn't run FEAR as it will perform very poorly. I replaced the FX5900U with a GD6800 iirc (could've been a 7600GS but this and the 6800 have very similar performance anyway) and it ran FEAR much much better 😀

Imo Netburst is easier to work with these days partially due to the Athlons and AthlonXPs requiring a PSU with substantial power on the 5v line, which most modern PSUs are totally inadequate for. P4 does not have these issues as from the very first P4, the 12v line became the main supply of power to the CPU.
Also Intel chipsets tend to be easier to work with then AMD CPU chipsets, but this often isn't much of a problem. Some chipsets like VIA have some odd bugs which can be annoying to work around, like the SATA2 bug. The Intel chipsets generally "just work". But of course Intel chipsets had their share of weird problems, it really comes down to the specific chipset and the build quality of the board in question.

To me a piece of hardware is just what it is. I'm not really a fanboy either way, though I hardly build any Intel rigs past Pentium 3 ones.

Jupiter-18 wrote:

I've heard about the "no-cache celerons" before. What a silly move. I mean i understand they wanted to save money, but there is a certain level of performance even the most basic of user needs.

Intel had managed to get itself into a bit of a marketing tangle in 1997. They were trying to muscle all other CPU vendors out of their premium platform by patenting Slot1 to the hilt. It worked, but made the platform completely uneconomical versus the contemporary So7 alternatives (an early slot 1 board easily cost twice the price of a good mid-period So7 board), which couldn't match the i686 FPU, but back then most applications (including games) were ALU-only so that wasn't a major drawback. Intel was desperate to find some way to lower the price of the Slot1 platform, which they could only do by slashing costs on the CPUs. Plus whatever it was had to be clocked higher than their So7 chips yet not challenge the flagship P2 CPU's performance. That conundrum gave someone the bright idea of slashing L2 entirely, halving manufacturing costs, easily allowing high clock speeds yet crippling performance far below P2 levels.

The fact that users almost instantly cottoned on to the fact they were better off with a P233MMX than a Celeron 266 for half the price, let alone a K6-266, was something Intel hadn't bargained for.

I suppose we should be grateful for it though, as it caused a panic reaction that lead to the Mendocino Celeron being rushed out with equally little concern for what it would do to the rest of Intel's produc line. It was basically the design which Intel would release months later as the Mobile P2 Dixon (once they managed to shift stocks of the unlovable original Mobile P2 Tonga), but with half the cache axed. Being a mobile design running in a desktop it ran cool and had lots of headroom for higher clocking, as discussed here at length these last day. Not the last time Intel ended up fixing a blunder in their desktop line with a mobile design - the Conroe Core2Duo that finally reclaimed both the absolute performance and performance per Watt crown from AMD was of course an evolution of the Pentium M mobile chip (which was basically a just supercharged P3).

Regardless
I'm thinking i might pair this with the Voodoo 3 3500 i have, does that sound like a good choice?

Weren't you going to use 2x Voodoo2 on this build? If so, having a V3 primary makes no sense. For daily use, the thick combined AV cable of the V3-3500 is a pain in the arse. I played around with a V3-3500 vs an ATi Rage Pro with 2x Voodoo2 for a year or so - despite the better performance of the V3, I used the ATi+2x V2 more often...

These days I'd suggest either an S3TC (Savage 2000) or Direct3d (TNT/GeForce or maybe Radeon) primary card next to the 2x V2, as that way you can play around with more than one 3D system.

Just too bad the morons from 3Dfx did not make more SLI based cards like the Voodoo 2 to be used more cards with SLI cable...
They say the Voodoo 5 was the new SLI card with multiple chips, well ok, but why the hell no more SLI cable...
Just imagine Voodoo 3 that can be connected to like not 1 more but 2 more cards making total of 3 cards that was going to be insane but sh17 happens...
The more retarded thing was that Voodoo 4 was polished Voodoo 3 Avenger chip rofl, and the Voodoo 5 VSA was little more polished rebrand of the original Avenger chip...
And the most retarded thing was 3Dfx did brake themselfs as they did buy the crap STB systems, instead of investing the money in the Rampage architecture...

Here are some truth from some angry people i guess, can`t find the original site, as there was lot more of this 🤣...

Nono, i am planning the dual V2s for my K6-III+/450 system, which is paired with a Matrox G400 Max.
(I need help learning how to set up drivers in 98SE and just general optimization for my needs by the way. It's a real pain.)

Jupiter-18 wrote:

Nono, i am planning the dual V2s for my K6-III+/450 system, which is paired with a Matrox G400 Max.
(I need help learning how to set up drivers in 98SE and just general optimization for my needs by the way. It's a real pain.)

In that case not sure the V3-3500 would be the best match. You lose 32b colour with it and probably your K6--3+ system would beat it on anything non-Glide.

So what would you recommend then?