maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-02-05, 20:47:
PPro is clock-for-clock faster than PII due primarily to the full speed L2 cache
That's debatable. In the application uses 32 bit code and doesn't use MMX then, yes, PPro is likely faster.
But if the application uses MMX and also rely on some 16 bit code, then PPro will be slower, in some cases a lot slower.
Also remember that PII has twice the cache of PPro (there are PPros with 512k and even 1 mb cache, but we're talking about the standard 256k version).
maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-02-05, 20:47:
MMX was 90% hype and didn't really mean shit
90% hype? Again, highly debatable. Yes, some apps do not use MMX at all. But some do use MMX and they do it very good.
I might be wrong, but I remember that Unreal Tournament was optimised for MMX, a friend of mine upgraded from P166 to P200 MMX, the difference in UT was huge.
Sure, it was software mode, and there was more than MMX, it was also a nice boost in cpu clock, but I'm sure MMX was a big factor in the speed boost.
In the end it all depends in what is the role of the machine. I repeat myself - if you want it to be as close as possible to "period correct" then V1 is the way to go.
If you want to play newer games then go for V2. But in this case there's no reason to go with PPro, you should go for PII or even PIII.
Personally, I'd never build a machine for games with PPro. PPro was an awesome CPU, but it was targeted for workstations and servers. Sure, it can play games, but it's not a good choice.
It's like going now for a low clock, but very high core count machine to play current games. You can buy a Xeon Platinum 9282 and pair it with RTX 2080Ti. Will it play games. Sure, it will, and very good.
But will it play it better than a 9900kf? No. It will only cost a lot more.