Compaq made outstanding PCs, but not in the home sector. I worked with many of their professional lines going all the way back to the luggable (my first x86 PC). The M line, though ridiculously expensive was an outstanding machine. The proliant line was great as well. The deskpro machine was when even their enterprise machines started going downhill. I had to supervise the swapping out of like 1000 bigfoot hard drives with the deskpro 2000 line in my work.

Yea 4 FPS is not that big of a deal. I ran quake on a AMD K5 PR-133 on my Tyan Tomcat III MB(still own)with a S3 VIRGE 4MB card and it ran fine. I was always more than happy using it.

A big deal in price though, back in the mid-late 90's Intel was price gouging Pentiums around $350-500, while a K6 and K6-2 could be around $250-275 or even less.

@@wildbilltexas That is true in price. Thats why I always looked at AMD. I knew and know people thru the years that bragged about getting the 3 or 4 more frames and for me I always though So what you spent 2 or 3 times on a cpu that for the most part majority of people wouldn't even notice the difference if you didn't tell them what cpu was in the computer to begin with. For me AMD was always a better bang for my dollar.

@@clintthompson4100 i had both amd and intel cpus over the years i had bad luck to not know the rules of the game when it comes to performance and had core e8300 on single memory channel nforce chipset (yes i overpayed majorly) but ever since then i stick back to my roots and back to amd apus and now ryzen 3 (first gen on 2nd gen board, need to get g model and get rid of that 1030 from my mini case though) i started from 286 of unknown maker then "authentic amd" 5x86 133, k6 166, then celeron northwood 2000 and back to pentium 3 tualatin up until modern era of computers when i actually could aford to buy new parts fun thing is in my country intel cpu's on used market can be bought for a bottle of coke, amd... 30$ minimum regardless what that is. on a silly note i would really love to see amd k6-3+ with that magic multiplier override set for it to ignore jumper settings and run on full speed on an old motherboard like this and dominate all the benchmarks

@@clintthompson4100 I'm glad AMD are good again, i had the FX-6300, that wasn't exactly great but hey, my Ryzen 5 2600 is amazing so who cares, i still could play most of my games without issues :)

But basically every Quantum Bigfoot died like 2 decades ago. That's just what they did well.

these DOS benchmarks always seemed strange to me. they never seem very representative of actual performance. i only really care about doom and quake in this collection my first benchmark at the time funnily enough was wingroove, a midi player with custom voices that sounded way better than any sound card. its benchmark gave your pc a relative score compared to a pentium 100mhz with a sound blaster 16. both the audio card and the cpu influenced it (audio cards only really made a difference for slow computers), but it was cool seeing that number grow absolutely huge with each upgrade. then i switched to TestCPU, a windows95 cpu benchmark app with a huge assortment of cpus already in it. i have most of my computers starting from a pentium 2 400 registered in its database that i still drag with me to this day. Aside from my computers, it comes from all sorts of stuff starting with a 386 @ 20mhz going up to a pentium 3 at 1050mhz (lots of stuff above that in my copy, but that was all me). it's the only place i can compare my 486 dx4 with my ryzen 5800x3d, as underutilized the 5800x3d might be by it. at least cache speed is somewhat representative, relatively speaking. (dx4 scores 29mb/s, ryzen 5800x3d scores 75gb/s) btw, in a calculation test a pentium 233mmx score 70, the k6 233 scores 81, and the 5800x3d scores 3971. this bench does it no favors, it loses out to the 5600x in every test, lol. that reminds me, gotta copy that to my laptop and include that 10750u in the database

Got another Presario with a k6-2 (dunno what speed) but will put that one against the Pentium II and then see how everything compares...

Yes, (Super) Socket 7 is really great.

@@Tom2404 Slot one will always be retro king :)

K6-2 will be faster due to having 3 levels of cache with l3 running at bus speed where p2 l2 runs half of cpu since its off die why ppro especially with 1mb cache will beat p2 also 3d now will help in games

@@primus711 Only K6-2+/3/3+ have Internal L2 cache

I currently have a AMD k6-2 300.. however a buddy of mine overclocked it to 400mhz for me

Always liked AMD ... always hd very high regards for companies like that willing to compete with companies like Intel

@@RetroSpector78 Amen to that!!!!

@@RetroSpector78 ironically, Intel kick-started AMD, that’s why it does feel like a ‘son vs. father’ kind of rivalry to me rather than the classic underdog narrative

Yeah! That's "stock photo girl"!

*all-in-one

Gotta love the information superhighway

Or just use an SD to IDE adapter, that’s what I do on my retro machines.

I have a nearly identical one as well (specifically a Presario 4505) but can't find a suitable restore disc, do you have a link?

@Franky Padilla The King is back 😅

Linux sucks, especially back then.

Good thing I got rid of my Pentium 2 machine I had from an estate sale and kept the AMD k6-2..

Don't give us HOPE X___________X

release the files on dropbox or something, humanity needs that

Can imagine this being a good combo.

@@RetroSpector78 Come to think of it, I did some scientific computations on this CPU as well. Image processing, asteroid detection, and orbit calculations.

How well it ran on linux ?

@@X-RAGE Very well. I think Linux took better advantage of the K6 than Windoze did.

@@AndrewTubbiolo thanks, im asking because im actually building an Asus P55TP4N Socket 7 FX pc and im thinking about using my Evergreen Spectra with K6-2 400mhz in it since the Pentium MMX will not work despite having the dual voltage rail unpopulated Also i want to dualboot in scsi windows 98 and Red Hat Linux 5.2 that’s why im asking

Have an early Pentium II 233 and another Presario with an AMD K6-2

It didn't applied only in Quake. Also, try it in 640x480, and you'll see why Pentium II was far more superior. It applied also in many 3D games, that started to grow in popularity, so people were affraid to take AMD k6. Because Pentium had better FPU. I would not risk it in that time too, and would take Pentium instead. At the end, we know, it was not so terrible, and that many 3D games, actually didnt took so big hit when FPU was weak, but we could not know after Quake. That's why many took Pentium anyway, so they have insurance for better FPU... also quake 2 was about to came out during 1997. Noone would risk K6, who liked Quake, cause also Hexen II was released fall 1997, and it was FPU dependant, as it was built on Quake engine. People knew, many games will be based upon Quake engines, so that's why Pentium was better bet. Here, it seems, like K6-233 is better, but actually no. Pentium 233 MMX was better take. Namely, best take was of course Pentium MMX 166, good motherboard, and overclock it to 225 (75x3).

@@warrax111 Pentium 2 yes, K6 was introduced to hang with the higher clocked late model Pentiums though. Of course K7 fixed all of the problems AMD had keeping up by being just plain better than the Pentium 3 :)

@@lemagreengreen Not true. I would take Celeron II, going back in time. Not AMD. First chipsets were problematics. First AMD, that was worth to take over Pentium (in that time 4), was Athlon XP on KT266A chipset. I owned Thunderbird system in 2002, with KT133A chipset, and it was problematic. Not so, as VIA MVP3, but still. Would not take those again. But super7 platform was true hell. Never again. Should paid little more for BX chipset, and take lesser Celeron (300A) and overclock it to 450.

@@warrax111 being introduced to do something doesn't mean it achieved it. as for athlons, my athlon @ 700mhz (that was a cartridge/slot cpu still) walked all over my friend's peniutm 3 @ 800mhz. Aside from slightly better IPC for most applications, AMD was also ahead in the mhz race (first to 1ghz). amd overtook intel with the first athlon and only started losing again when core2duo came out. then it lost 10 years straight until ryzen. i've owned all sorts of athlons and athlons xps and i have absolutely no idea what you mean by problematic. they were solid, awesome cpus. late on with the nforce2 boards then, just computing perfection. i guess early ones didn't have thermal throttling so if you mounted the cooler wrong they would overheat until they froze or fried. a problem easily solved by installing the cooler correctly. i think athlon xps fixed this issue tho, they were flawless and just better choices than any pentium 4.

OMG imagine the load times :O

@@FeelingShred yeah, wasn't the speediest thing in the world, but I was 5 years old so I didn't know much better lol.

@@howaboutsomesoyfood I know how it feels, I think I made it through until late 1999 with a 486-133MHz... incredibly enough, that thing was still able to run most games I wanted to play... Pentium 3 later on that year was like a spaceship from the future... doesn't make a difference to me anyway since I still play old DOS games for the most part

I tend to agree, I’ve even heard people say that 95 wasn’t stable compared to 98 but my experience was the opposite. In fact...unpopular opinion, but I really like Millennium Edition, never had any problems with it. I used 95 for so long, then used 98 for a really short time before moving to ME that I couldn’t go back. I’ve built loads of retro systems and tried to use 98 many times but just can’t get on with it, for me it’s either 95 or ME.

Should really try out some of those early win95 3d games with a voodoo 1

@@jonchapman6821 Yeah, I haven't had too many stability issues with 95 either.

I've seen Quake 1 running on a 486 DX 100, so I'm not sure it use MMX. Quake was available in 1996, about one year before the Pentium MMX.

Wow i thought old games servers dead, but holy shit ❤️

@@MidnightPixies The game has the server built into itself

@@Schule04 many games have that ability... Unreal Tournament franchise as a whole, DooM, Quake..

Of course you had good computer with K6 200. Overclocked to 225 mhz, beast. You can see results here: www.anandtech.com/show/33/4 also comparsion with pentium 233 MMX and various overclocks. Only to choose right motherboard (some chipsets were better with K6, some better with Pentiums). Differances wasn't very big. With overclocked K6-200, you could be almost sure, you had top notch peformance in early to mid 1997, in late 1997, only Pentium II systems was ahead.

@@warrax111 The Pentium II was a beast when it was released, despite the half-speed L2 cache. A classmate of mine had one, and I will admit to being a bit envious, but still, I was very happy with my system.

@@rebeccaschade3987 Yes. I was on 486 DX2 - 66 , in 1997. So you could be happy. I would be jaleaus with k6-200 in that time. I so much dreamed about 640x480 resolution, but nah, no money to go out of 486. So we could not play Quake 1 (even in 320x200), and all games in 320x200. No money for voodoo, or riva 128. Only ati 3d Rage II, which kinda suck. Then, we upgraded for cheap, to socket 7 in dec 1997, but only 133 Pentium. It was mistake. But i was kid, that upgrade was from father. I would choose pentium 166 MMX, price differance was worth. Also would overclock it to 200, but didnt know I could overclock with one jumper (was kid, didnt knwo about hw, only played games). Btw Pentium II system were half -cache, but in that time, all socket 7 platform had L2 cache on motherboard!!! That meant eighter 66 Mhz, or 75 (after overclock). 100 mhz fsb didnt existed in that time. So even Pentium II 233 (lowest) had cache almost 2x speedy (233 / 2 = 112 Mhz L2 cache)

@@warrax111 Yes, I'm aware that external cache is obviously much slower, but the half-speed cache was considered a major flaw in the design at the time, and it was indeed proven to just that a short while later, by how a Celeron A, with one quarter the size cache, but running at full speed, could often outperform the Pentium II at similar clock speeds. But hey, it was a way of keeping cost down. Intel had learned from their experience with the Pentium Pro.

@@rebeccaschade3987 yes, but no processor had on-die cache, except Celeron, till AMD k6-3 in 1999. So mid 1997-mid 1999 (2 years), all except Celeron A, which came aug 1998, had slower Cache than Pentium II/III (half-speed). Also 128kb on die, was not faster all the time. Also pentium III, had SSE, which in that time, offered boost in many cases. So half-speed Cache, was considered good whole 2 years. (from 1997 to 1999). Would not call it major flaw. Just opposite, first year, it was prised for being big advantage in all reviews , including Anandtech. Then came Celeron A, which was big step away, because Intel could not sell Pentium II 350, 400 and 450 , because of that. Thats why it was Released Pentium III, with big advartisement because of SSE instruction, so they can price it again higher, and convice people, that it is good for internet and multimedia. That's why from early 1999 to mid 1999, there was famous / infamous advertisement campaign, also they named it Pentium III, so it seems better. In fact, it was still old Pentium II design, even without die shrunk, only Katmai instructions SSE were added. It was not true Pentium III. Just saying, why it happen. It was because of Celeron A, because of Pentium II could not be sold anymore for higher prices. They need to make Pentium III, and SSE massive campaign , so they can keep it on same high prices as Pentium II were before Celeron A. Originally, Pentium III name was planned only for Coppermine.

@@YoureUsingWordsIncorrectly He certainly did. heres the youtube video of it. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mbF0bLtytcWVZp8.html

I have also successfully ran a VooDoo2 in my compax of this model but that is with the pentium classic 200 which draws much less power than either the mmx or the k6. It seemed to work well enough with no hickups. Voodoo2 draws something like 2 amps at 5 volts. If you clock the k6 at 200mhz you can get away with runing it at 2.8 volts easily enough. And that will save quite a lot on the 5 volt rail and allow use of the V2

Funny story - I had a similar one, but in my experience back then the K6-233 marginally beat the MMX-233 across the board - EVEN in the infamous FPU-heavy tasks. I remember I had a friend with an MMX-233 who at some point got convinced his motherboard of CPU were faulty, as we ran repeated benchmarks and his Pentium always fell a little short from my K6. Even funnier is...fast forward 25+ years, I found a K6-200 and an MMX 200 in my old parts stash. Tested them on the same SS7 board...literally same everything, just swapped the CPUs and ran the tests (they use the very same settings except for vcore). Well...I'll be damned, but the K6 still comes out on top - even in supposedly unfavourable 3D workloads such as Quake III Arena, 3D Mark 99/2000, Unreal Tournament and Drakan. Pure FPU benchmarks DO show the K6 lagging slightly behind, but real world applications invert the picture.

@HoboWild Not shock from windows 98... windows 98 wasnt so demanding. It needed only more RAM. Shock was from Celeron. Particulary Celeron A (august 1998). That made socket 7 system obsolete, as you could easily got 450 Celeron, with 100 Mhz FSB. That thing was like 3-4x faster, than usual bargain socket 7 system, to which most ex-USSR and other poor countries upgraded from 486. Typical PC user, had 486 during 1995-1997, then upgraded in 1997 or realy 1998 to socket 7, because 486 was unusable from mid 1997 up. (except maybe am5x86 133 mhz). 3d Games basicaly made 486 obsolete. Also people wanted to play in 640x480 and higher resolution finally, for that 486 system was compeltly unusable. But, it was bad upgrade to upgrade to socket 7 in 1997. One should wait one year, and take Celeron 300 overclocked to 450. OR, at least supersocket 7 system in late 1998, based on 100 MHz FSB and AGP slot. I was also one of ex-USSr unlucky who upgraded to Pentium 133, in late 1997. (from 486 DX2-66). So bad decision. In half year, it was obsolete. Should wait for Celeron for sure.

Also 75W psu ?

@@RetroSpector78 A Voodoo 2 takes about 15 W.

would not say so. Different benchmarks, different games (particular 3D games, that was popular at the end of 1997, and during 1998... much better to take in 1997 Pentium 166 MMX, and overclock it to 225 Mhz), You also got better Quake 2 results, also Hexen II results... etc etc. 3D gaming started to be bread and butter in 1998. But for office work... yeah. Amd K6 was better take.

not sure if Carmageddon (DOS) would run in 233 MHz? but it seemed to run in my crappy 486-133, so maybe it does

The only reason the AMD here is showing good benchmarks against Intel is because the AMD is a couple of years newer. Match a 1997 Pentium II against this 1997 AMD cpu, and you will have a different outcome.

@@tomservo5007 yerp.. that is the way it went, but what made AMD always the winner for me was it's bang for buck, sure it took a while for them to exceed Intels answer to their Answer but in the end Intel never made the cut because of that bang for buck advantage, not to over look my one and only bad experience with intel not coping well in Australia's hotter climate..

@@tomservo5007 Please stop lying?

@@dallesamllhals9161 please stop revising history. AMD in the early/mid 90s wasn't a CPU to pick for gaming.

@@tomservo5007 Oh yes it was. Are you very young or just very stupid? Try saying Cyrix next time.

Well that is debatable

Saving those for the k6-2. Most of these things were released in 1998 I think and could use a beefier CPU and especially some 3dfx magic. Think this particular PC was more intented for dos gaming and some early win95 titles (perhaps with a voodoo1).

because more normal people made them.

@@warrax111 they were more expensive and 30 times slower than a bad computer today yet so much more fun

@@kenkelvin4023 they were not slower. They were fastest available, at their time. Future is always unclear. Intel promised Moore's law even after 2010, but it stopped to apply. So you always have to pay premium for fastest actual machines. Also, in those times, not so many factories were around, so components were more expensive. As you couldn't get it cheaper, people was willing to pay. If competition would not exists, they would probably remained about same pricy.

@@warrax111 so many amazing websites are now gone and every Internet forum is a shell of what it used to be ... I hate social media

Nope, 200-233 MHz late '97 is just about right!

@@dallesamllhals9161 Late 97 high-end was really 200-233. (eighter P1 MMX or PII 233). 166 MMX could be overclocked almost all time to 200 MMX, so no problem. And it was processor from january 1997.

@@warrax111 I built a K6 200MHz in Sep. 1997! = what the hell are you trying to say?

@@dallesamllhals9161 I was agreeing with your comment, dude. Not much more to say, when you understand it. :) I repeat it, somaybe you missed it . "Late 97 high-end was really 200-233. (eighter P1 MMX or PII 233)." that means, that you were right.