rasz_pl wrote on 2023-10-21, 06:38:

Gateway Destination is a bit of a meme. Gateway 2000 Destination Video Editing Workstation From what I read it was a huge DELL miscalculation and a flop.
Afaik it was build with 440FX, that means SIMMs and no AGP: https://wiki.preterhuman.net/Gateway_2000_Destination_D6-266 while 440LX was already on the market and 440BX came 4 months later in 1998.

Those were built with lots of different CPUs and motherboards (probably just whatever was available near the end - they were basically school classroom computers at that point).
Here's a Pentium 133 on the same website:
https://wiki.preterhuman.net/Gateway_2000_Destination_D5-133
This one has an Anigma 586 motherboard (430TX and SDRAM-only) and probably a 200MHz Pentium MMX:
https://imgur.com/gallery/uYe6b
https://imgur.com/gallery/mb5Ny
The Anigma 586 is a meme in itself. It's both a standard ATX motherboard and a Destination-specific board at the same time (using two different front panel headers - the Destination one even has a front USB port, but using it disables one of the two rear USB ports), and it has a switching VRM made out of discrete transistors when controller ICs were readily available. That's really a subject for a different thread, though.

in 98 the PII would have had 128Mb of RAM, 256 was possible but highly unlikely. the the 99 system would have had 256Mb of RAM.

All of which you could dismiss by saying yes but you could add that much RAM, it was possible to buy it.
Which is fair enough, but then the rest of the system doesnt reflect that "going all in" idea.
I mean a DVD ROM over a CD-RW?
A CD-RW was possible in 1997 and that would have been one of the ultimate things of the year.

By the time the decent Geforce cards came out 3dfx very quickly died on their feet. One of the reasons the later 3dfx cards are hard to find is so few people bought them. Theyre far more desirable now than they were back then.

30Gb HDDs were possible in 1999, and it would have had a CD-RW and DVD-ROM drive, not just a DVD-ROM. Just a DVD is what you would add to a budget build to upgrade the CDROM.

the 440BX chipset on the 99 system doesnt sound right. I know the 810 was a disaster but the 820 was basically DOA as there was no take up beyond big system OEMs. But the 810 was what we had until the 815 came out a year or so later.

It depends on what you want.
If you want the ultimate tech that year could have possibily provided then they are wrong. If you want the systems people would have actually bought then they are still wrong.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-10-23, 04:23:

the 440BX chipset on the 99 system doesnt sound right. I know the 810 was a disaster but the 820 was basically DOA as there was no take up beyond big system OEMs. But the 810 was what we had until the 815 came out a year or so later.

Socket 370 came out in late 98 and was initially a budget socket only supporting 66MHz FSB CPUs (Celerons). Slot 1 (And the BX chipset) was the performance platform in 99 until Socket 370 got 100/133MHz FSB support in late 99.

The PIII 600MHz Slot 1 Katmai didn't even come out until Sept 99.

And then in March 2000 Intel lost the crown with AMD shipping first 1GHz CPU 😀 https://www.zdnet.com/article/its-official-am … rst-5000096067/

Then come July 2000 Intel tried to outdo AMD with 1.13GHz model .. just to be forced into costly recall because extreme overclock made those processors crash all the time :] https://www.itprotoday.com/windows-78/cpu-emb … tium-iii-113ghz

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel,219.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/revisiti … -intel,221.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-ad … -iii-1,235.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/latest-u … -intel,236.html

Combined with a shitshow of 820 chipset and RAMBUS Intel was in a panic mode. Similar to what we have witnessed with Ryzens recently and Intel being forced to clown around ~2KW commercial chiller to show 5GHz CPU on stage https://www.anandtech.com/show/12907/we-got-a … ou-need-to-know

kingcake wrote on 2023-10-23, 05:43:

Socket 370 came out in late 98 and was initially a budget socket only supporting 66MHz FSB CPUs (Celerons). Slot 1 (And the BX chipset) was the performance platform in 99 until Socket 370 got 100/133MHz FSB support in late 99.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel,219.html:
"The last and possibly most likely reason that I can see is the fact that by keeping the Giga-and Beyond -Pentium III processors at Slot1 only, Intel makes sure that nobody will combine those CPUs with its new PC133 SDRAM based chipset i815 (Solano). After all Intel is still trying to make a point that Rambus is the best memory solution, even though their own benchmarks prove the opposite , and by making a Giga-Solano combination impossible Rambus should be very pleased."

Seems like corporate deals under the table.

I don't agree about the 1996 build. First, Pentium (Classic) 200 would be better for gaming than the Pentium Pro.

If you want S3 graphics card, then it would be Virge or Virge VX. DX was released in 1997 (please, correct me if I'm wrong). Same with GUS Extreme. It was released in 1997. If it was available in 1996, it should be the primary sound card. Not secondary.

Perhaps Yamaha SW60XG would be a good alternative for midi card (although I would go with SCC-1) . But the Yamaha SW60XG/DB50XG should definitely be on the 1997 build (because of Final Fantasy 7).

And for 1995 build the S3 vision 968 based cards would likely be better than Trio based cards because Trio was used on cheaper cards and Vision on better quality cards.

aitotat wrote on 2023-10-23, 09:24:

Perhaps Yamaha SW60XG would be a good alternative for midi card (although I would go with SCC-1) . But the Yamaha SW60XG/DB50XG should definitely be on the 1997 build (because of Final Fantasy 7).

Just a quick note on Final Fantasy 7.

That game was originally released in 1997 for the Sony PlayStation, but the PC version shipped in June of 1998.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2023-10-23, 09:38:

That game was originally released in 1997 for the Sony PlayStation, but the PC version shipped in June of 1998.

You are correct. I didn't remember that. I bought FF7 PC version when it was released. I clearly remember I had K6 233 MHz and Hercules Stringray 128/3D (Voodoo Rush) back then. You simply cannot forget those ugly raster effects that the Rush produced. But I didn't remember it was 1998.

aitotat wrote on 2023-10-23, 09:24:

I don't agree about the 1996 build. First, Pentium (Classic) 200 would be better for gaming than the Pentium Pro.

This one could go either way. Some games (e.g. Quake) were faster on a Pentium Pro. And CGW did use the Pro in their own ultimate build of that time.

If you want S3 graphics card, then it would be Virge or Virge VX. DX was released in 1997 (please, correct me if I'm wrong).

You're likely right about this. While the Virge DX chipset is listed as having released in 1996, every card I can find based on it has a 1997 manufacturing dates at the earliest. So it probably an earlier Virge that would have been available on graphic cards in 1996.

Same with GUS Extreme. It was released in 1997.

The original GUS Extreme was the Synergy ViperMAX. While I don't have an exact release date, both cards I own have 1995 manufacturing dates. And I found a review of it in a 1996 issue of the German PC Player magazine.

It was later rebranded as the GUS Extreme which came out in 1997. But since folks tend to lump those cards together (since they're basically the same card), I left it in the 1996 build.

If it was available in 1996, it should be the primary sound card. Not secondary.

This is probably splitting hairs, but for a 1996 build that runs Windows 95 I'd probably go with an AWE64 over the GUS Extreme just from a compatibility standpoint. Don't get me wrong, the GUS Extreme is my favorite DOS sound card, but given the transition away from DOS, I feel the AWE64 would have better forward compatibility.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-10-23, 12:14:

aitotat wrote on 2023-10-23, 09:24:

I don't agree about the 1996 build. First, Pentium (Classic) 200 would be better for gaming than the Pentium Pro.

This one could go either way. Some games (e.g. Quake) were faster on a Pentium Pro. And CGW did use the Pro in their own ultimate build of that time.

I'd say that Pentium Pro was the better option as the Windows performance was significantly better than a regular Pentium 200, and back in 1996 people knew that DirectX and 32 bit were the future. 16 bit applications would run more than good enough on the Pentium Pro.

vetz wrote on 2023-10-23, 12:21:

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-10-23, 12:14:

aitotat wrote on 2023-10-23, 09:24:

I don't agree about the 1996 build. First, Pentium (Classic) 200 would be better for gaming than the Pentium Pro.

This one could go either way. Some games (e.g. Quake) were faster on a Pentium Pro. And CGW did use the Pro in their own ultimate build of that time.

I'd say that Pentium Pro was the better option as the Windows performance was significantly better than a regular Pentium 200, and back in 1996 people knew that DirectX and 32 bit were the future. 16 bit applications would run more than good enough on the Pentium Pro.

Agreed. As a late 1996 build going into 1997 almost all games were moving to Windows by that point.

The exception was probably the build engine games (Duke 3d, Blood, Shadow Warrior) and those would have likely run better on a regular Pentium.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-10-23, 04:23:

in 98 the PII would have had 128Mb of RAM, 256 was possible but highly unlikely. the the 99 system would have had 256Mb of RAM.

Most 1998 systems did list 128MB, however, CGW's ultimate build (circa Dec 1998) listed 256MB of RAM.

Generally speaking the RAM listed is at the high end for the time, whereas a more realistic build would have halved it in most cases.

I mean a DVD ROM over a CD-RW?
A CD-RW was possible in 1997 and that would have been one of the ultimate things of the year.

TBH, I didn't really focus too much on speccing of removable media like CD-RW at the time. I'll need to do some more research and amend the list accordingly.

the 440BX chipset on the 99 system doesnt sound right.

That was a typo. As I noted in the text of the OP, should have been an Intel 820.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-10-23, 12:44:

That was a typo. As I noted in the text of the OP, should have been an Intel 820.

by cost maybe 😀 but not performance and usability

rasz_pl wrote on 2023-10-23, 07:31:

And then in March 2000 Intel lost the crown with AMD shipping first 1GHz CPU :) https://www.zdnet.com/article/its-official-am … […]
Show full quote

And then in March 2000 Intel lost the crown with AMD shipping first 1GHz CPU 😀 https://www.zdnet.com/article/its-official-am … rst-5000096067/

Then come July 2000 Intel tried to outdo AMD with 1.13GHz model .. just to be forced into costly recall because extreme overclock made those processors crash all the time :] https://www.itprotoday.com/windows-78/cpu-emb … tium-iii-113ghz

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel,219.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/revisiti … -intel,221.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-ad … -iii-1,235.html
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/latest-u … -intel,236.html

Combined with a shitshow of 820 chipset and RAMBUS Intel was in a panic mode. Similar to what we have witnessed with Ryzens recently and Intel being forced to clown around ~2KW commercial chiller to show 5GHz CPU on stage https://www.anandtech.com/show/12907/we-got-a … ou-need-to-know

kingcake wrote on 2023-10-23, 05:43:

Socket 370 came out in late 98 and was initially a budget socket only supporting 66MHz FSB CPUs (Celerons). Slot 1 (And the BX chipset) was the performance platform in 99 until Socket 370 got 100/133MHz FSB support in late 99.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel,219.html:
"The last and possibly most likely reason that I can see is the fact that by keeping the Giga-and Beyond -Pentium III processors at Slot1 only, Intel makes sure that nobody will combine those CPUs with its new PC133 SDRAM based chipset i815 (Solano). After all Intel is still trying to make a point that Rambus is the best memory solution, even though their own benchmarks prove the opposite , and by making a Giga-Solano combination impossible Rambus should be very pleased."

Seems like corporate deals under the table.

Yes they were first to market with their 1GHz CPU but nobody took AMD seriously because it was the first time AMD could muster up a CPU that actually had a performance increase over the Intel chips, which were racing up to 1Ghz at break neck speed.

Then came the recall, which while wasnt good for either of them the good name Intel had meant it weathered to disgrace better than AMD did.

Regading the i820 chipset. None of the board manufactureres wanted to put any real money into developing a board whos RAM was a barrier to ownership.
No memory could be considered by, but RAMBUS took expensive to a whole new level of expensive.
I remember all the magazine articles of the time telling that it didnt offer much if any performance advantage over SDRAM and it was much more expensive and so were the boards to put it on and the i820 died 7 deaths.
It was a real disaster for Intel, but the alternative in AMD was so weak the disaster didnt hardly seem to matter. I mean none of the bog OEMs in the US or Europe dropped Intel because of it, they just pressed on selling Intel in record numbers with the 810 chipset, they were better doing that then even consider the AMD chips because everybody knew AMD werent as good as Intel, even if their chips actually managed to out perform Intel in this instance.

AMD didnt have to wait until the Ryzen chips to get one up on Intel. That battle came a lot sooner than that and was won by AMD. Even though their chips were not as fast they won because they were cheap and performed well enough for most people.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-10-23, 12:44:

Most 1998 systems did list 128MB, however, CGW's ultimate build (circa Dec 1998) listed 256MB of RAM. […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-10-23, 04:23:

in 98 the PII would have had 128Mb of RAM, 256 was possible but highly unlikely. the the 99 system would have had 256Mb of RAM.

Most 1998 systems did list 128MB, however, CGW's ultimate build (circa Dec 1998) listed 256MB of RAM.

Generally speaking the RAM listed is at the high end for the time, whereas a more realistic build would have halved it in most cases.

I mean a DVD ROM over a CD-RW?
A CD-RW was possible in 1997 and that would have been one of the ultimate things of the year.

TBH, I didn't really focus too much on speccing of removable media like CD-RW at the time. I'll need to do some more research and amend the list accordingly.

the 440BX chipset on the 99 system doesnt sound right.

That was a typo. As I noted in the text of the OP, should have been an Intel 820.

Yes I know, you said the same as I did just in a different way!
And like I said later are you building a system that can be as good as it can be or what was likely, because those PCs on that list are a mix of both.
You have high end amount of RAM with low end optical drive. Which doesnt make any sense.

As an example that 1999 system might better read
Pentium III 800EB
Skt 370
Intel 820
512Mb SDRAM
GeForce 256
Matrox G400 PCI for multiple monitors
Sound card I have no idea. Creative something because of the name? Ive never been into sound cards because I have a HiFi system...
3.5" Superdisk LS-120 can read 1.44 floppy disks
Panasonic DVD-RAM with SCSI controller in a PCI slot, probably Adaptec if you have money to burn.
30Gb Hard disk
Windows 98SE with Plus 98! and all the trimmings.

But that only counts as an ultimate '99 system if the base requirement was to run Windows 98SE. If there was no limitations placed at all then it would have been a dual Pentium III not a single. So youre Ultimate '99 system will always fall 50% short of the Ultimate mark. Because now you could add a decent video editing card and a RAID controller.

vetz wrote on 2023-10-23, 12:21:

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-10-23, 12:14:

aitotat wrote on 2023-10-23, 09:24:

I don't agree about the 1996 build. First, Pentium (Classic) 200 would be better for gaming than the Pentium Pro.

This one could go either way. Some games (e.g. Quake) were faster on a Pentium Pro. And CGW did use the Pro in their own ultimate build of that time.

I'd say that Pentium Pro was the better option as the Windows performance was significantly better than a regular Pentium 200, and back in 1996 people knew that DirectX and 32 bit were the future. 16 bit applications would run more than good enough on the Pentium Pro.

A good chunk of the Win9x codebase was still 16-bit. So general usage still suffered with the Pentium Pro compared to an MMX. If you were running NT/2000 it was superior.

kingcake wrote on 2023-10-23, 16:30:

vetz wrote on 2023-10-23, 12:21:

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-10-23, 12:14:

This one could go either way. Some games (e.g. Quake) were faster on a Pentium Pro. And CGW did use the Pro in their own ultimate build of that time.

I'd say that Pentium Pro was the better option as the Windows performance was significantly better than a regular Pentium 200, and back in 1996 people knew that DirectX and 32 bit were the future. 16 bit applications would run more than good enough on the Pentium Pro.

A good chunk of the Win9x codebase was still 16-bit. So general usage still suffered with the Pentium Pro compared to an MMX. If you were running NT/2000 it was superior.

A dual Pentium Pro would have been the only Ultimate system worth talking about that year.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-10-23, 15:24:

But that only counts as an ultimate '99 system if the base requirement was to run Windows 98SE. If there was no limitations placed at all then it would have been a dual Pentium III not a single. So youre Ultimate '99 system will always fall 50% short of the Ultimate mark. Because now you could add a decent video editing card and a RAID controller.

As I specified in the thread title, this is really intended to focus on home gaming rigs. It's meant as a high level guide on what a baller home gaming setup might look like if one had money to burn.

There are obviously a lot of other computer use cases which would result in different definitions of what an 'ultimate' rig would look like. This is why I'm not getting into the minutia of different types of peripherals or removal media, and so on.

Everyone will have different ideas of what they consider 'ultimate' or what they want to use a system. They can plug in the gaps accordingly and define their own systems.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-10-23, 16:42:

A dual Pentium Pro would have been the only Ultimate system worth talking about that year.

Of course. These specs represent specific points-in-time. Any top end system wouldn't hold that crown for very long given the pace of hardware development.

kingcake wrote on 2023-10-23, 16:30:

A good chunk of the Win9x codebase was still 16-bit. So general usage still suffered with the Pentium Pro compared to an MMX. If you were running NT/2000 it was superior.

Are there any benchmarks that show this? I've been scouring old publications trying to find comparisons of Pentiums and Pentium Pro, especially at the same clockspeeds.

I did find a reference from a 1996 article suggesting that PC World found that under Windows 95 a Pentium Pro offered an 8 percent performance increase:

Computer publication PC World now says a high-end Pentium Pro computer is the fastest way on earth to run Windows 95. But not by that much. Lab tests conclude that there's roughly an 8 percent speed advantage in a 200-megahertz Pentium Pro over a Pentium 200.

Haven't been able to locate the original PC World article though.

In the Feb 20 1996 issue of PC Magazine their review of Pentium Pro they also did note that in performance testing there either wasn't any different from regular Pentiums or the Pentium Pro performed much better. Though it was a little difficult to try to decipher results since they tended to review and public the Pentium Pro results separate from regular Pentiums.

edited to add:

Found another thread showing a variety of benchmarks including the Pentium Pro: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

While some of the benchmarks do show the Pentium Pro ahead of Pentiums, they also didn't use FASTVID in their testing. So probably not showing what the Pentium Pro is really capable of.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-10-23, 16:48:

As I specified in the thread title, this is really intended to focus on home gaming rigs. It's meant as a high level guide on wh […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-10-23, 15:24:

But that only counts as an ultimate '99 system if the base requirement was to run Windows 98SE. If there was no limitations placed at all then it would have been a dual Pentium III not a single. So youre Ultimate '99 system will always fall 50% short of the Ultimate mark. Because now you could add a decent video editing card and a RAID controller.

As I specified in the thread title, this is really intended to focus on home gaming rigs. It's meant as a high level guide on what a baller home gaming setup might look like if one had money to burn.

There are obviously a lot of other computer use cases which would result in different definitions of what an 'ultimate' rig would look like. This is why I'm not getting into the minutia of different types of peripherals or removal media, and so on.

Everyone will have different ideas of what they consider 'ultimate' or what they want to use a system. They can plug in the gaps accordingly and define their own systems.

Well if youre focus is on gaming and require Windows 9x then it wont be the ultimate system. It might be the Ultimate 9x system but thats a long way from where it could be.

People often fall into the trap of thinking gaming orientated PCs to be the ultimate performers.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-10-23, 16:49:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-10-23, 16:42:

A dual Pentium Pro would have been the only Ultimate system worth talking about that year.

Of course. These specs represent specific points-in-time. Any top end system wouldn't hold that crown for very long given the pace of hardware development.

Which is why I can understand you limiting yourself to a year, especiually those years ago technology moved on so quickly. What was the best at the end of one year wouldnt have made the best model spec list the next.

Shponglefan wrote on 2023-10-23, 17:13:

Are there any benchmarks that show this? I've been scouring old publications trying to find comparisons of Pentiums and Pentium […]
Show full quote

kingcake wrote on 2023-10-23, 16:30:

A good chunk of the Win9x codebase was still 16-bit. So general usage still suffered with the Pentium Pro compared to an MMX. If you were running NT/2000 it was superior.

Are there any benchmarks that show this? I've been scouring old publications trying to find comparisons of Pentiums and Pentium Pro, especially at the same clockspeeds.

I did find a reference from a 1996 article suggesting that PC World found that under Windows 95 a Pentium Pro offered an 8 percent performance increase:

Computer publication PC World now says a high-end Pentium Pro computer is the fastest way on earth to run Windows 95. But not by that much. Lab tests conclude that there's roughly an 8 percent speed advantage in a 200-megahertz Pentium Pro over a Pentium 200.

Haven't been able to locate the original PC World article though.

In the Feb 20 1996 issue of PC Magazine their review of Pentium Pro they also did note that in performance testing there either wasn't any different from regular Pentiums or the Pentium Pro performed much better. Though it was a little difficult to try to decipher results since they tended to review and public the Pentium Pro results separate from regular Pentiums.

edited to add:

Found another thread showing a variety of benchmarks including the Pentium Pro: The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

While some of the benchmarks do show the Pentium Pro ahead of Pentiums, they also didn't use FASTVID in their testing. So probably not showing what the Pentium Pro is really capable of.

I had a Pentium Pro system. It felt fast when you were using it.

The Pentium Pro was what started me on the SMP path.