leileilol wrote on 2024-06-29, 01:01:

Months apart. (Mar 1999 - Aug 1999)

Oh right, he has an argon 700. So it would be october 99.

If you like to have a multiboot system with Windows 3.1x too, go for a TNT2. Ah, no. TNT2's are from 1999. TNT is from 1998.
You can use your Voodoo3 too. Ah, no, it's from 1999. So Voodoo² SLI is period correct.
Else, take a GeForce 256 because of Hardware T&L. Ah, no, that's August 1999.
If you'd like to have an early 1999 system, go for a Katmai Pentium III. Ah no, that's February 1999.
Celeron 300A overclocked to 450 would be nice too. It's August 1998 and faster than a Pentium II 450.

Thx again for the many new replies. @chinny22 yes putting the gf4 into the athlon system might be cool idea. Not period correct but I am curious how the athlon 700 and this card would work together.

I will also look into the Savage3D or Rage128.

I will also check out the Geforce 256 that Shponglefan Disruptor mentioned.

Unfortunately, Geforce 256 cards are rare, so I must look for the Geforce 2 MX 400 instead due to better availability.

predator_085 wrote on 2024-06-29, 07:48:

Thx again for the many new replies. @chinny22 yes putting the gf4 into the athlon system might be cool idea. Not period correct […]
Show full quote

Thx again for the many new replies. @chinny22 yes putting the gf4 into the athlon system might be cool idea. Not period correct but I am curious how the athlon 700 and this card would work together.

I will also look into the Savage3D or Rage128.

I will also check out the Geforce 256 that Shponglefan Disruptor mentioned.

Unfortunately, Geforce 256 cards are rare, so I must look for the Geforce 2 MX 400 instead due to better availability.

GeForce 2 MX would be a good idea too.
Which Athlon 700 do you have? The Argon one or the Pluto/Orion one? The latter is manufactured in a smaller process and consumes less power.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Athlon_(K7)

High end system (circa 1998):
Celeron 300A/333 overclocked to 450+ Mhz
440BX motherboard
128 Mb RAM
Riva TNT + Voodoo 2 SLI
Creative Sound Blaster Live! (OG version CT4760)

That setup was completely obliterated by Quake 3 Arena next year =P

Disruptor wrote on 2024-06-29, 07:53:

GeForce 2 MX would be a good idea too. Which Athlon 700 do you have? The Argon one or the Pluto/Orion one? The latter is manufac […]
Show full quote

predator_085 wrote on 2024-06-29, 07:48:

Thx again for the many new replies. @chinny22 yes putting the gf4 into the athlon system might be cool idea. Not period correct […]
Show full quote

Thx again for the many new replies. @chinny22 yes putting the gf4 into the athlon system might be cool idea. Not period correct but I am curious how the athlon 700 and this card would work together.

I will also look into the Savage3D or Rage128.

I will also check out the Geforce 256 that Shponglefan Disruptor mentioned.

Unfortunately, Geforce 256 cards are rare, so I must look for the Geforce 2 MX 400 instead due to better availability. The features seem to be similar enough to have a very authentic GF 256 experience in case I should go that path and pick the already existing gf4 for usage in my Athlon.

GeForce 2 MX would be a good idea too.
Which Athlon 700 do you have? The Argon one or the Pluto/Orion one? The latter is manufactured in a smaller process and consumes less power.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Athlon_(K7)

I have a pluto model 2.

This one

https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K7/AMD-Athlon% … MTR51B%20A.html

And yeah If want to have a gf 256 the gf2 mx 400 would be the best alternative availability-wise.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-06-29, 07:58:

High end system (circa 1998): Celeron 300A/333 overclocked to 450+ Mhz 440BX motherboard 128 Mb RAM Riva TNT + Voodoo 2 SLI Crea […]
Show full quote

High end system (circa 1998):
Celeron 300A/333 overclocked to 450+ Mhz
440BX motherboard
128 Mb RAM
Riva TNT + Voodoo 2 SLI
Creative Sound Blaster Live! (OG version CT4760)

That setuo was completely obliterated by Quake 3 Arena next year =P

Thanks for the recommendation. Another nice recommendation for the Celeron. I need to look into the Celeron as an alternative for the PII 450 MHz. I am new to overclockling business but I am very eager to learn about it.

The Creative Sound Blaster Live! is a great choice for sure. It was also my first thought when building the system in my mind but after finding out how many games I want to play to support A3d I am more curious about getting an Aureal Vortex card.

I also have a Audigy 1 card working in my Athlon 700 system already so It would be nice to get a different card for the second system.

ux-3 wrote on 2024-06-27, 12:12:

predator_085 wrote on 2024-06-27, 06:45:

I want to have a very high end 1998 gaming system with Win 98Se
What are your ideas of a peroid correct high end 1998 system?
Please feel free to share your thoughts.

My thoughts are: If you use this OS and build a realease year system, you will get a bottom barrel gaming system for the OS.

Personally, I would pick the OS and then move the hardware slider as far up as possible, while paying attention to compatibility borders.

I would agree with that. Stuff was just moving so quickly at that time. The 450MHz PII came out in August 1998. 850/1000MHz PIII models were released in March 2000. I actually have a vague recollection of being like "huh?" when the PIII came out - the PII only spent 21 months as Intel's flagship before suddenly wow they're at PIII. (Compare with 4 years between Pentium and PII)

Assuming that performance-per-MHz is about the same between a Deschutes and a Coppermine, that means you're looking at a doubling of performance in 20 months. Both on 440BX boards, both running 98SE, both with the same expansion options, etc.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-27, 12:22:

A Pentium II 450 is in no way a bottom of the barrel gaming system for Windows 98.

If you look at a lot of minimum requirements for games of that era, a lot of them required basic Pentium systems. A Pentium II would generally meet or exceed most games minimum if not recommended requirements for 1998-2000.

But minimum requirements back then were generally a joke... you needed at least the recommended requirements, if not a healthy margin above, for what was considered good performance at the time. And my guess would be that people have higher expectations in terms of framerates, resolutions, etc on a retro system in 2024 than they did back in 1998.

VivienM wrote on 2024-06-29, 16:38:

But minimum requirements back then were generally a joke... you needed at least the recommended requirements, if not a healthy margin above, for what was considered good performance at the time. And my guess would be that people have higher expectations in terms of framerates, resolutions, etc on a retro system in 2024 than they did back in 1998.

I'm not saying that games of that era would run well with minimum requirements. I'm saying that a Pentium II 450 isn't a "bottom of the barrel" system for that particular time period.

And I agree, that anyone looking for higher-end performance should probably consider a PIII or P4 equivalent system. But a PII-450 would still be decent for the era.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-29, 17:49:

I'm saying that a Pentium II 450 isn't a "bottom of the barrel" system for that particular time period.

I didn't say that either. I said it would be bottom of the barrel for the OS.

ux-3 wrote on 2024-06-29, 18:05:

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-29, 17:49:

I'm saying that a Pentium II 450 isn't a "bottom of the barrel" system for that particular time period.

I didn't say that either. I said it would be bottom of the barrel for the OS.

And I politely disagree with that as well. 😉

A 486 w0uld be a bottom of the barrel system for Windows 98. A realistic 'low end' system for Win 98 would probably be a Pentium MMX. A Pentium II 450 is leaps and bounds beyond that.

I know the well heeled gentleman of 1998 probably wouldn't have opted for it but what was the last S3 card to support that proprietary API for the Virge?

I'd sit there with an underpowered celery stick and a GX2 and some yamaha audio card hooked up to some post-FX gain and reverb box, & then I'd feel less bad about 20 fps with drops.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-29, 18:13:

ux-3 wrote on 2024-06-29, 18:05:

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-29, 17:49:

I'm saying that a Pentium II 450 isn't a "bottom of the barrel" system for that particular time period.

I didn't say that either. I said it would be bottom of the barrel for the OS.

And I politely disagree with that as well. 😉

A 486 w0uld be a bottom of the barrel system for Windows 98. A realistic 'low end' system for Win 98 would probably be a Pentium MMX. A Pentium II 450 is leaps and bounds beyond that.

At the time, sure, but for a retro system? What insane lunatic in 2024 would want to run Win98 on anything pre-late 1998, especially knowing it's probably easier/cheaper to find a P4 system than a Pentium MMX in good condition these days?

More importantly, 1998 represents the very beginning of the Win98 era. (Maybe even not really - most software released in 1998 probably ran on 95 as well) We have the benefit of 20 years of looking back at the entire Win98 era, so... essentially, we know how that era ends. And it ends with hardware dramatically more powerful than it began with.

VivienM wrote on 2024-06-29, 20:43:

At the time, sure, but for a retro system? What insane lunatic in 2024 would want to run Win98 on anything pre-late 1998, especially knowing it's probably easier/cheaper to find a P4 system than a Pentium MMX in good condition these days?

To be clear, my reference to Pentium MMX system is considering the time period. They were still being sold as budget systems when Windows 98 first launched.

I personally wouldn't build a Pentium MMX system for Win98, but to each their own.

More importantly, 1998 represents the very beginning of the Win98 era. (Maybe even not really - most software released in 1998 probably ran on 95 as well) We have the benefit of 20 years of looking back at the entire Win98 era, so... essentially, we know how that era ends. And it ends with hardware dramatically more powerful than it began with.

Insofar as retro builds go, it comes down to personal build philosophy and goals.

IMHO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing a period correct build targeting a specific year or era of hardware. Not everything has to be a "best of" hardware selection for any given OS. Period correct or non-optimal systems can be more fun and interesting than just replicating a best-of system.

Besides, a high-end 1998 PII build isn't going to be a slouch when it comes to 1990s Windows gaming. It's just a matter of setting expectations for what to expect from such a build.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-30, 00:21:

VivienM wrote on 2024-06-29, 20:43:

At the time, sure, but for a retro system? What insane lunatic in 2024 would want to run Win98 on anything pre-late 1998, especially knowing it's probably easier/cheaper to find a P4 system than a Pentium MMX in good condition these days?

To be clear, my reference to Pentium MMX system is considering the time period. They were still being sold as budget systems when Windows 98 first launched.

I personally wouldn't build a Pentium MMX system for Win98, but to each their own.

Yes, they were... and they would have been obsolete less than a year after bieng purchased.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-06-30, 00:21:

Insofar as retro builds go, it comes down to personal build philosophy and goals. […]
Show full quote

More importantly, 1998 represents the very beginning of the Win98 era. (Maybe even not really - most software released in 1998 probably ran on 95 as well) We have the benefit of 20 years of looking back at the entire Win98 era, so... essentially, we know how that era ends. And it ends with hardware dramatically more powerful than it began with.

Insofar as retro builds go, it comes down to personal build philosophy and goals.

IMHO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing a period correct build targeting a specific year or era of hardware. Not everything has to be a "best of" hardware selection for any given OS. Period correct or non-optimal systems can be more fun and interesting than just replicating a best-of system.

Besides, a high-end 1998 PII build isn't going to be a slouch when it comes to 1990s Windows gaming. It's just a matter of setting expectations for what to expect from such a build.

Sure, but I think you have to separate whether you're targeting a year in software or a year in hardware. Because I think there's about a 3-year difference between the two.

i.e. if you want the best system for 1995-era software, you probably want about a 1998-era system. That represents the tail end of components being available with DOS/Win3.1 drivers. Of course, you're doing something that no one would have done at the time - who would have bought a PII 4xxMHz with a TNT video card to run DOS/Win3.11 in 1998? And why would they have picked an ISA SB AWE64 over a PCI SB Live!?

Similarly, if you want the best (or close enough) system for 1998-era software, I think you're looking at about 2001-2002. The mediocrity of the P4 muddies the waters a bit but I would think a late PIII or P4 Northwood, or some equivalent Athlons, a GF4, an Audigy-era sound card, etc would give you best results. And again, you're doing something no one would have done at the time - at the time those machines would have all been running XP.

"you have to build best for the OS's whole era" sucks. My favorite part of this thread are all the odd mentions of the Virge, which are infamous for NOT being high end, and "virge games" hadn't been a thing since 1996. Virge was very much old news when 1998 rolled around.

If I build a 1998 system I'd absolutely have a Banshee (Monster Fusion) with a K6-2 400 instead. Then, i'd have money for cool things like..... a monitor... video games..... TEN access.....

The big thing to know about 1998 are the games that make a lot of blend function use, which all generally obsolete 1st gen 3D accelerators that don't blend at all, which includes Virge, PowerVR1, Mystique / G100A, Alliance....
Positional audio was also a big thing and that'd obsolete ISA sound as well. 😀

smh all this wink wink nudge of 1996 parts along with gaslighting into building a 2001 system

A man with ferrari money in 1998 didn't think about his PC owned a Cyrix and went all-in on Rage XL ATICIF

VivienM wrote on 2024-06-30, 00:58:

Of course, you're doing something that no one would have done at the time

True, but with a simple reason: The price of the current components and the lack of access to hardware from the future to run the current software.

You would use a swap bay, while drivers for older OS still existed.

Most games that really requires Windows 98 to run is old enough to run on a maxed out 1998 or 1999 build. Games like Q3 and UT99 works great in newer windows version and with much more powerful hardware.

So there are not much need of running Windows 98 on 2001-2003 hardware even if it works.

leileilol wrote on 2024-06-30, 04:48:

"you have to build best for the OS's whole era" sucks. My favorite part of this thread are all the odd mentions of the Virge, […]
Show full quote

"you have to build best for the OS's whole era" sucks. My favorite part of this thread are all the odd mentions of the Virge, which are infamous for NOT being high end, and "virge games" hadn't been a thing since 1996. Virge was very much old news when 1998 rolled around.

If I build a 1998 system I'd absolutely have a Banshee (Monster Fusion) with a K6-2 400 instead. Then, i'd have money for cool things like..... a monitor... video games..... TEN access.....

The big thing to know about 1998 are the games that make a lot of blend function use, which all generally obsolete 1st gen 3D accelerators that don't blend at all, which includes Virge, PowerVR1, Mystique / G100A, Alliance....
Positional audio was also a big thing and that'd obsolete ISA sound as well. 😀

smh all this wink wink nudge of 1996 parts along with gaslighting into building a 2001 system

Don't get me wrong: I read your post several times and I am still not quite sure on what you are trying to say.

OSkar000 wrote on 2024-06-30, 09:09:

Most games that really requires Windows 98 to run is old enough to run on a maxed out 1998 or 1999 build.

I am sorry but I disagree here to some extend. (Military machine) Simulations don't really run too well on release hardware. They often need more speed and higher resolutions. Some don't take the transfer to XP very well. But yes, that may be a niche. I wasn't into first person shooters too much.