For a 98 build I would pair it with TNT and an Aureal Vortex 2 soundcard. Sb Live is a great alternative though.

lup31337 wrote on 2025-05-14, 13:59:

Hello […]
Show full quote

Hello

I want to build a period correct 1998 PC build. Going to use Windows 98 and play windows games mainly. The idea is to use top of the line 1998 components.
Things I know for sure I will use:
Asus p2b-f motherboard
PII 450 Mhz
Voodoo 2 SLI 12 MB

The following parts are up for debate:
256 or 512 RAM ?
Thinking of using Creative sound blaster live! . Any other suggestions?

Regarding the 2D card is where I am most confused. Thinking of using Matrox Millennium G200 AGP. Change my mind! 😀

Period correct would be like 64 MB of RAM 😆
I'm fond of Yamaha sound cards, those may be something look into.
A TNT could be fun?

Never crossed my mind to use a Riva TNT as a 2D card. Won't I run into conflicts when running Direct 3D games? (riva vs voodoo)

Peak specs for 1998 would include:

Pentium II 450 (Deschutes)
Intel 440BX chipset
256MB of RAM
Riva TNT (AGP)
3DFx Voodoo 2 SLI
Diamond Monster MX300 (Aureal Vortex 2) and/or original Sound Blaster Live!

This is based on research into the highest spec systems available for 1998.

lup31337 wrote on 2025-05-14, 15:41:

Never crossed my mind to use a Riva TNT as a 2D card. Won't I run into conflicts when running Direct 3D games? (riva vs voodoo)

You can set Voodoo cards in their drivers to not support Direct3D. Which means the TNT will be used for Direct 3D. That leaves the Voodoo for glide, which is what it does best.

256MB is more than you will ever need on a system like that and I’ve bumped into some games that just don’t work with 512MB. You won’t struggle with anything you realistically play on that thing with 128MB either.

As someone suggested, for high end 1998 gaming rig I’d use TNT. It performs better and has generally better drivers.

If you are aiming for top notch gaming CPU, I’d take Celeron 300a and OC it to 450 or even higher. It can clock-to-clock beat P2 on many games due to significantly faster cache.

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2025-05-14, 16:07:

If you are aiming for top notch gaming CPU, I’d take Celeron 300a and OC it to 450 or even higher. It can clock-to-clock beat P2 on many games due to significantly faster cache.

That's a good point. An overclocked Celeron 300a @ 450MHz does beat the Pentium II at the same clock for gaming.

Period-realistic build for 1998:
K6-2 300
Riva 128
32 MB SDRAM

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-05-14, 16:15:

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2025-05-14, 16:07:

If you are aiming for top notch gaming CPU, I’d take Celeron 300a and OC it to 450 or even higher. It can clock-to-clock beat P2 on many games due to significantly faster cache.

That's a good point. An overclocked Celeron 300a @ 450MHz does beat the Pentium II at the same clock for gaming.

Yeah. And it pretty much strikes on par in everything else. Where it loses in the cache size, it compensates it with faster cache and in many cases delivers more. So in the worst case scenario @450 it is practically identical with the similarly clocked P2.

It was THE gamers choice 1998 after it was released as it performed better with OC that practically was guaranteed to work and was also cheaper. I find 300a as one of the biggest CPU legends for all time, unlike P2 which looks pretty underwhelming compared to its supposed budget offering. And I think it was a crucial product for making OC truly a popular thing.

vvbee wrote on 2025-05-14, 16:24:

Period-realistic build for 1998: K6-2 300 Riva 128 32 MB SDRAM […]
Show full quote

Period-realistic build for 1998:
K6-2 300
Riva 128
32 MB SDRAM

P2 or something like 300a isn’t any less realistic build for 1998 than a K6-2. I got P2-400, 128MB, G200, Live! that summer, unfortunately just probably days away before 300a was released. And it wasn’t anything that was obscenely expensive at that time, bought it with a student loan 🤣

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-05-14, 15:58:

Peak specs for 1998 would include: […]
Show full quote

Peak specs for 1998 would include:

Pentium II 450 (Deschutes)
Intel 440BX chipset
256MB of RAM
Riva TNT (AGP)
3DFx Voodoo 2 SLI
Diamond Monster MX300 (Aureal Vortex 2) and/or original Sound Blaster Live!

This is based on research into the highest spec systems available for 1998.

Actually and Realistically people were still using a Pentium 200mhz and AMD k6 back in 1997/98
ISA slots and Sound Blaster PCI
32mb of RAM was common.
Matrox millennium, TNT, Voodoo, ATI Rage

The Pentium-ll@400mhz was becoming popular with computer manufactures
But in Win98se era.

So you had two era’s
Win98 and Win98se

Win98se and WinNT 4.0 was being sold with the Pentium-ll 400

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2025-05-14, 17:04:

Actually and Realistically people were still using a Pentium 200mhz and AMD k6 back in 1997/98 ISA slots and Sound Blaster PCI 3 […]
Show full quote

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-05-14, 15:58:

Peak specs for 1998 would include: […]
Show full quote

Peak specs for 1998 would include:

Pentium II 450 (Deschutes)
Intel 440BX chipset
256MB of RAM
Riva TNT (AGP)
3DFx Voodoo 2 SLI
Diamond Monster MX300 (Aureal Vortex 2) and/or original Sound Blaster Live!

This is based on research into the highest spec systems available for 1998.

Actually and Realistically people were still using a Pentium 200mhz and AMD k6 back in 1997/98
ISA slots and Sound Blaster PCI
32mb of RAM was common.
Matrox millennium, TNT, Voodoo

The Pentium-ll@400mhz was becoming popular with computer manufactures
But in Win98se era.

So you had two era’s
Win98 and Win98se

Win98se and WinNT 4.0 was being sold with the Pentium-ll 400

Umm, no. Win 98 was released in june 1998 and that’s what I got with my P2-400 that summer. And that was of course Deschutes, Pentium 2 was over a year old by that time. 98SE was released year later in june 1999 and P3 had by all practical purposes substituted P2 by that point.

There is nothing unrealistic about P2 or some Slot 1 Celeron in 1998. Or having win98 installed on a such system. The fact that people were still using older Pentiums or buying cheaper AMDs is of course true, but Pentium 2s definitely weren’t something that were out of reach of regular joes unlike something like PPro a sometime earlier.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2025-05-14, 17:04:

Actually and Realistically people were still using a Pentium 200mhz and AMD k6 back in 1997/98

OP didn't ask for a realistic build. They asked for a build with "top of the line 1998 components".

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2025-05-14, 17:40:

There is nothing unrealistic about P2 or some Slot 1 Celeron in 1998. Or having win98 installed on a such system. The fact that people were still using older Pentiums or buying cheaper AMDs is of course true, but Pentium 2s definitely weren’t something that were out of reach of regular joes unlike something like PPro a sometime earlier.

Exactly. My own 1998 PC (first PC I ever bought/built myself) was an AMD K6-2 333 MHz with a Riva TNT graphics card.

It might not have been the most high-end system for that time, but it also wasn't an MMX or K6 rig...

Okay, Back in 1997 I was working at a Computer education center that taught Windows certification courses ( WinNT4.0 workstation and Server.
we were teaching on Pentium 90 and 100mhz CPUs with 32mb of RAM
These were expensive computers even back then.
When I went to computer education school back in 1994 we learned DOS, Win3.11, Novell, and Windows NT 3.5.1 and Win95 on IBM desktops with Pentium 90 CPU's
I did NOT have a Pentium 150mhz computer and AMD k6-300 at home until 1999

Hardware was Very expensive even for the high tech worker making good money.

The first time I saw Pentium-ll CPU was in late 1997 in a NEW HP Kayak workstation with an Pentium-ll@300mhz CPU
it came with WinNT 4.0.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2025-05-14, 16:05:

lup31337 wrote on 2025-05-14, 15:41:

Never crossed my mind to use a Riva TNT as a 2D card. Won't I run into conflicts when running Direct 3D games? (riva vs voodoo)

You can set Voodoo cards in their drivers to not support Direct3D. Which means the TNT will be used for Direct 3D. That leaves the Voodoo for glide, which is what it does best.

I always pair my voodoo's with a better Direct 3D performance, setup works really well.

You wouldn't need lots of RAM for Windows 98 for late 90's software. I'd say you only need 128MB, but 256MB won't hurt.

I think you'll have lots of choices for late 90's graphics cards. I had an ATI Rage II card in 98. It did get a bit long in tooth by the end of the decade.

256 and 512mb aren't 1998 amounts. By 128mb you're already pushing it into unneccessary amounts. Browsers weren't yet subject to extreme java/javascript/flash bloat as the dial-up reality kept everyone in check, and the big games didn't require more than 32. 128mb in 1998 means you're probably rendering and/or serving on NT4.

I hate Nvidia, and PowerVR slipped their SG off this year (THANKS A FUCKIN LOT NEC) so i'd have to suggest Rage Fury 128. 😀 (not to be confused with Rage Fury 128 Pro, Rage Fury Maxx, Xpert 2000)

lup31337 wrote on 2025-05-14, 13:59:

I want to build a period correct 1998 PC build. Going to use Windows 98 and play windows games mainly. The idea is to use top of […]
Show full quote

I want to build a period correct 1998 PC build. Going to use Windows 98 and play windows games mainly. The idea is to use top of the line 1998 components.

The following parts are up for debate:
256 or 512 RAM ?
Thinking of using Creative sound blaster live! . Any other suggestions?

Regarding the 2D card is where I am most confused. Thinking of using Matrox Millennium G200 AGP. Change my mind! 😀

The PII 450MHz in a Slot 1 440BX is great. You mentioned that that part wasn't up for debate, and funny enough - the thread turned it into one. Slot 1 is the right choice, imo, and opens doors in the future should you want to bump the system up a little bit.

Just to put the year into perspective -

I updated my PC in 1998 and went with an Epox BXA-M mobo w/ Pentium II-266 (4.0 x 66MHz) w/ 64MB of RAM. I still have the invoice taped inside the case - June 17, 1998.
A friend of mine bought a Pentium II-350 (3.5 x 100MHz) w/ 128MB in August. I was jealous of the 100MHz FSB. Never tried overclocking.

My machine pulled a few items from the previous system (Pentium 100MHz) to save money, and I added to the system (second sound card, second Voodoo 2) or replaced components (PCI->AGP primary) by the end of the year.

I didn't have the fastest system at the time, but the build was:
Pentium II 266MHz
128MB RAM
Matrox G200 AGP (primary VGA)
Diamond Monster 3D II 8MB x 2
Sound Blaster AWE64 Gold (ISA sound)
Diamond MX300 - Aureal Vortex2 (PCI sound)

I feel like 128MB was "fine" for the games I played in late 1998, and tbh, I may have carried 64MB into 1999. I can't quite remember that RAM part.

And then that leaves your sound situation. I was more of an A3D guy than EAX. A3D in Half Life was pretty good, iirc. I had kinda soured on Creative Labs by that point in time, and I want to say the drivers were a mess for Live! close to that card's release. I assume things got better.

Look forward to reading more about your system!