• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How much was a pentium PRO?

When?

I got one for my collection just a few months ago for $25 (unopened box).

But back when they were released, they were very expensive. Think $500 and up depending on version.
 
i remember around when it was released a pentium 166 was $500-600. i think when the first pentium Pro's came out there was a 150 and 166 , 180 and 200 mhz editions ( i remember at the time, the "power users" were overclocking their 150s to 166 / 180 a lot), the 200mhz 512k if i recall was in the $1100-1200 range (don't remember all the specifics, but there were also 256k and 512k variants) if not more at launch.
 
Maximilian said:
How much was a pentium PRO?
Click to expand...


If I remember right, in the late 1990s, I saw Pentium Pros on pricewatch in the $1,000 - $1,300 price range.

Back somewhere around 2001, 2002, or maybe even 2003 there was an article about how 5+ year old pentium pros were outperforming brand new CPUs. It was a great read, but I'am not sure if that article is still online.
 
Texashiker said:
If I remember right, in the late 1990s, I saw Pentium Pros on pricewatch in the $1,000 - $1,300 price range.

Back somewhere around 2001, 2002, or maybe even 2003 there was an article about how 5+ year old pentium pros were outperforming brand new CPUs. It was a great read, but I'am not sure if that article is still online.
Click to expand...

Uh, by 2001 there were Pentium IIIs clocked at >1 GHz on the market. How can a 66 MHz Pentium Pro possibly outperform that?
 
996GT2 said:
Uh, by 2001 there were Pentium IIIs clocked at >1 GHz on the market. How can a 66 MHz Pentium Pro possibly outperform that?
Click to expand...

It was due to the speed of the cache, and the amount of cache that the pentium pros used. The pentium III and pentium IVs used slower cache and less of it.

I'll spend some time looking for that article, if I can find it I'll post a link.
 
Texashiker said:
It was due to the speed of the cache, and the amount of cache that the pentium pros used. The pentium III and pentium IVs used slower cache and less of it.

I'll spend some time looking for that article, if I can find it I'll post a link.
Click to expand...

the article was probably comparing 16 vs 32 bit applications in the late 90's and compared a ppro to a similarly clocked pentium(original).
 
Maximilian said:
Is this it?

arstechnica.com/cpu/ppro_editorial.html

I stumbled across that in my earlier google to find out the retail price of these things when they were new.
Click to expand...

The article I saw was something like that one, but I thought there were side-by-side comparisons with newer chips and benchmarks. The article I'am thinking about, I must have read it maybe 8 or 9 years ago.

I dont remember the Pro costing only $404, I paid almost that much for a Pentium III around 1998.

I honestly thought the Pro cost in the $1,000+ price range. That is why so few people had them and they were mostly a server grade chip - kinda like what the Xeon is today.
 
Texashiker said:
The article I saw was something like that one, but I thought there were side-by-side comparisons with newer chips and benchmarks. The article I'am thinking about, I must have read it maybe 8 or 9 years ago.

I dont remember the Pro costing only $404, I paid almost that much for a Pentium III around 1998.

I honestly thought the Pro cost in the $1,000+ price range. That is why so few people had them and they were mostly a server grade chip - kinda like what the Xeon is today.
Click to expand...

pentium 2 launched in mid 1997. i don't think the p3 was around until early 1999.

the 512 KB version of the pro did cost over $1000. the other reason most people didn't have them is that 16 bit performance lagged the pentium and pentium mmx.
 
ElFenix said:
pentium 2 launched in mid 1997. i don't think the p3 was around until early 1999.
Click to expand...

Your right, the pentium III did not launch until 1999 (per wikipedia), so that is when I must have bought mine.

But even then, I remember people saying that Pentium Pros were better for sever grade applications.
 
Texashiker said:
Your right, the pentium III did not launch until 1999 (per wikipedia), so that is when I must have bought mine.

But even then, I remember people saying that Pentium Pros were better for sever grade applications.
Click to expand...

not by then. the only real advantage the pentium pro had over the ii/iii was cache speed, which ran at the speed of the core. the ii and the katmai core iii had 1/2 speed cache. you would need very specific applications for a katmai core piii to lose to any flavor pentium pro.
 
ElFenix said:
the only real advantage the pentium pro had over the ii/iii was cache speed, which ran at the speed of the core. the ii and the katmai core iii had 1/2 speed cache.
Click to expand...

My pentium III 450 cache ran at half speed. A buddy of mine bought a 400mhz celeron, overclocked it to around 500 mhz, and was outperforming my P3 450 for maybe 1/2 the price.

When I was at quakecon in 1998, a buddy of mine had to go to his job and restart a server - if memory serves me right, the server was running 4 pentium pros and around 4 gigs of memory. I thought it was a pretty awesome server. Considering my home system was a 166mhz and maybe 64 megs of memory.
 
Last edited:
celeron 300A, that was the one to have. nearly effortless overclocking to 450 mhz, full speed cache. nice processor.

pentium pro couldn't touch those speeds. i did overclock mine to 233 by moving a jumper.
 
The PPro also came in a version that featured 1MB of L2 cache, FYI:

649px-Pentium_Pro_Black_Edition_Front.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Pentium Pro was ahead of it's time... a 32-bit optimized CPU back when people were running mostly 16-bit applications under Windows 3.1 and Windows 95.

You needed a Windows NT 4 workstation in order to enjoy the real performance boost.
 
ultimatebob said:
The Pentium Pro was ahead of it's time... a 32-bit optimized CPU back when people were running mostly 16-bit applications under Windows 3.1 and Windows 95.

You needed a Windows NT 4 workstation in order to enjoy the real performance boost.
Click to expand...

Yes. :awe:
 
ultimatebob said:
The Pentium Pro was ahead of it's time... a 32-bit optimized CPU back when people were running mostly 16-bit applications under Windows 3.1 and Windows 95.

You needed a Windows NT 4 workstation in order to enjoy the real performance boost.
Click to expand...

As was the K8 A64.

Advances in hardware are always encumbered by software.

My concerns over the aspirations of ARM are covered by the same.
 
I had two PPro boxes back then. A single CPU box at 233 MHz and an SMP box with NT. The mainboard for the SMP box would only do 200 MHz. 🙁

My box at work was an SMP PPro HP Kayak back when they built them like utter tanks.

I can't remember what the individual components cost, but the SMP box was close to $5k.

These days, I balk at paying over $200 per component.
 
I have a special place in my heart for the PPro. I still have my PPro system stored out in the garage and this thread makes me want to bring it in and power it up -- assuming I can find an AT keyboard. 😀
 
IndyColtsFan said:
I have a special place in my heart for the PPro. I still have my PPro system stored out in the garage and this thread makes me want to bring it in and power it up -- assuming I can find an AT keyboard. 😀
Click to expand...

Dreams of the pentium pro in a laptop, fueled by the movie Hackers, resulted in my having consumed many a bag of peanut butter cups and cheetos while slamming down MtDew and flipping through the 800pg behemoth that was computer shopper back then.

Kate Libby said:
"It's a P6 chip. Triple the speed of the Pentium"
Click to expand...

Heh, that was so long ago that Angelina Jolie was actually still mildly hot in that weird "boyish and yet has big perky boobs" sort of way.
 
Aah the good old days. When everything was simple and when file sharing involved walking around with a stack of eighty floppies and 6 stiffies just to copy one game. CD roms cost more than PCs those days
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top