The History of a Dream: How the Ultimate PC Has Evolved In 15 Years
As we worked on this years 15th Dream Machine, we couldn't help but think about how far we've come. From the original 200MHz, 8MB-of-RAM 1996 Dream Machine up to this years 12-core, 24-thread, 24-gigs-of-RAM version, the ultimate computer has grown exponentially more powerful. But that's not much of a shocker (we've all heard about Moore's Law, and all) so we decided to delve deeper into the history of the Dream Machine. We collected data about the vital statistics of each years machine, and made a bunch of graphs showing how they've grown. (You can also see our 2004 predictions for this years Dream Machine here!) Some of what we found out surprised even us.
Keep reading for all the charts, as well as our thoughts about why they look the way they do. And since it wouldn't be any fun if we couldn't gawk at the old beige-box beasts, we've included a gallery of every year's Dream Machine cover at the end.
Processor
Since almost every Dream Machine has featured the fastest CPU available you can see the influence of clock speeds over the last 14 years. From Pentium to Pentium II and Pentium III clock speeds grew pretty slowly. In 1999, for our basic build it, we used a simple 500MHz Pentium III when a faster 650MHz chip was available. But fast forward to 2001 and you see the influence of the Pentium 4 and the NetBurst microarchitecture. Bred by Intel to climb to higher clock speeds rather pack in more instructions per clock, Dream Machines with NetBurst took off like a rocket from 2001, to 2002, 2003 and finally peaked in 2004. That year, we took a stock 3.6GHz Pentium 4 560 and clocked it up to a stable 3.97GHz. Yeah, those Prescott’s really clocked up something fierce eh? Not.
That 90nm Prescott signaled the end of NetBurst. Intel’s 3.8GHz Pentium 4 570 would be the end of the line for the clock speed race. The next year saw clock speeds plummet back to earth yet we still saw higher performance. In 2005, we built a dual-Opteron machine with clock speeds of 2.2GHz. and the clock speeds have pretty much stabilized since then.
Here we take into account the overclocked speeds of each Dream Machine. It pretty much reflects the same pattern we saw with the stock CPU clocks. From Pentium to Pentium III the clock speeds gradually increased and then took off like a rocket with the Pentium 4. What’s really interesting is the our flatlining from 2008 to 2010 at 4GHz. Much of that is due to the platform we choose. In 2008, we featured another dual-processor machine using a pair of Xeon, ahem, Core 2 QX9775 chips. In 2009, in a world being swept away by financial disaster, we were happy to have electricity to power the Dream Machine. And we were happy to take our 3.33GHz Core i7-975 Extreme Edition to 4GHz – the point where it would pass our stress tests.
Look at this chart and then look at the one that shows the climb of clock speed. It’s no coincidence that in 2004, when the Pentium 4 hit the wall at 1,000MPH that we started to see the push for more cores. In 2005, we used a dual, dual-core machine. The year after, a dual-core Core 2 Extreme X6800. From there, we’ve been trying to get as many cores in the Dream Machine as possible. This year’s is truly triumphant though with 12 cores and well, another 12 virtual cores thrown in for good measure.
RAM
It may look flat, but the chart is deceiving. The amount of system RAM has increased exponentially several times. Hell, 8MB in 1991! Seriously? We do admit, there were some long stretches where system RAM did not increase. It’s one of the things that led Intel to push so hard for Rambus in the late 1990s. You see, since main memory wasn’t going to explode, users were going to need the super duper fast Direct RDRAM which offered incredible bandwidth. Yes, you can be a hater on Rambus and Direct RDRAM (we were once the same) but RDRAM was actually ahead of its time and it is a shame politics and legal shenanigans muddied it up. It took DDR several generations and years to surpass the first iteration of PC800 RDRAM in performance. The Dream Machine actually featured RDRAM in 2000, 2001, and the most insane implementation of it in 2002. That’s the year that we used a crazy 512MB RIMM4200/PC1066 module. In essence, the RIMM4200 module combined two RIMMs into one to give you dual-channel performance in one slot. Ultimately, the idea was to have two dual-channel RIMM4200 modules in a PC that would give you a PC with quad-channel memory. Alas, we know how that ended. By 2003, Dream Machine moved on to DDR and never looked back. Our write up in 2002 even acknowledged that the days of RDRAM in the PC were done for once DDR emerged. DDR, DDR2 and DDR3 are the lingua franca of today’s PC.
You should also note that main memory is tied into the OS. That spike you see in 2005 came from the use of a dual-core, dual Opteron machine (dual’s usually demand more RAM than single processor machines) and our dual booting of Windows XP Pro and 64-bit Windows XP Pro. Of course, 64-bit became more of a reality with the introduction of 64-bit versions of Vista (Windows XP 64-bit was nothing more than a science experiment and even we recognized that) in 2006. But the resistance to Windows Vista was so high, that we bypassed 64-bit Vista in favor of Windows XP Professional. Things were still so bad for Windows Vista in 2007, that Dream Machine 2007 dual-booted the machine with the primary OS being Windows XP. This kept the system RAM down at 2GB, albeit, high-clocked. We weren’t comfortable with Windows 64-bit Vista until 2008 when we finally used it as the primary OS for the Dream Machine. With its 64-bit capability and most of the early bugs squashed by SP1, it was finally the primary OS in Dream Machine 2008 which featured 8GB of RAM for its dual processor configuration.
Up Next: video cards, power supplies, price, and the gallery.
![]()
handyman315
September 06, 2010 at 5:19am
I keep looking at this year's Dream Machine and wonder how looks, per se, have so quickly become outdated.
Let's be honest, readers wait for the annual Dream Machine, don't we? The Dream Machine issue turned me into a MaxPC fan years ago.
Take the side window, for example. How did it so quickly become passe? I don't get it. I'm an old guy geek and I think it's just way cool to peek inside something that we could not easily look into for several years.
And lights . . . I hesitate to even mention them. I'm sorry, you boys and girls at MaxPC brought me out of the "closet" back about 2003 and I ain't goin' back in. For about $20 I can turn that mundane box into a veritable Christmas tree.
Form over function? No way, I'd never advocate that. But folks, we've about got these babies where we want them function-wise, right? They hum. So what's wrong with a little form as well?
. . . but then again, I thought pocket protectors were cool.
____________________________________________________
Leonard: "We need to widen our circle."
Sheldon: "I have a very wide circle. I have 212 friends on MySpace."
Leonard: "Yes, and you've never met one of them."
Sheldon: "That's the beauty of it."_____________________________________________________________
![]()
bensen408
August 03, 2010 at 7:46pm
I have my reasons for favoring the aesthetics of the Dream Machine from 2003... I just wish I could do as neat a wiring job. It looks like my hair first thing in the morning. Eeek!
![]()
handyman315
August 03, 2010 at 5:53pm
I'm a 65-year old geek who "grew up" (in the 70s) on PCs with 6-inch green screens and with Windows being an interesting concept. I suffered through IBM's baby blue mainframes before you young turks ever thought about beige.
When simple beauty emerged in 2003, mostly with your fine magazine's annual Dream Machine, I embraced your freshness, your boldness, and the finite thought that a home PC need not be ugly.
Alas, you've come full circle, and with my hero Gordon no doubt leading the way. You young folks do know the term, "Butt Ugly", right?
Sad, but we are destined to repeat our mistakes, aren't we?
![]()
BlueX273
August 02, 2010 at 12:24am
Fasinating and quite freaky (in a good way) how much the performance of computers increased! Not to mention, how much their prices droped! Gee... I can only imagine how powerful computers get by 2015. Mabye 16 core CPUs, 10TB total storage, 20GB RAM, 20GB VRAM? I can't tell at this point... XD
![]()
ar09
August 01, 2010 at 11:15am
Those trinitron monitors... makes me want to buy one and replace my lcd with it.
![]()
flatlinebb
August 04, 2010 at 7:19pm
I just replaced my aging Dell trinitron 20in monitor with a 24in Viewsonic LCD two months ago. I loved those big huge CRT's.
![]()
violian
July 30, 2010 at 10:15am
It's really amazing how fast PC technology and prices has changed in the last 12-15 years (after realizing how much I haven't changed). I always remembered as a little kid drooling all over in the PC-department at our local SEARS. I always had my eyes on this one Packard Bell PC. My parents eventually got us one: a 700MHz Intel Celeron, 32MB RAM with 15GB storage and a CRT monitor for $1500 !! Ouch, that was a lot of money in those days because back then, a full cart of groceries would only run $50-70.
![]()
paradissis.1
August 01, 2010 at 4:25am
Hell my first PC back in 1992 (I think it was 1992) was a Gateway 486DX4 100mhz, 1mb ram, 2gb hard drive. It played Doom like a champ. It cost my father $4,000. I still remember how proud I was of that system since none of my friends had one like this. About a year later my friend bough a Pentium 66mhz system that was faster than mine and I was SOOOOOOO jealous
![]()
Mark17
July 29, 2010 at 9:57pm
Great article. It's amazing how far technology has come in the past 15 years. I think that MaximumPC should make a prediction as to what the specs of their dream machine will be 10 years from now. Then, in ten years we can look back at the prediction and laugh at how incredibly bad was. Just a thought.
![]()
Metalmorphasis
July 29, 2010 at 6:42pm
In perfect condition,wrapped in plastic! Maybe you will all see it on E-Bay someday?
And yep, Moore's law. We all haven't seen nothing yet!
![]()
Cache
July 29, 2010 at 4:11pm
Fascinating read--although I can't help but wonder what the cost-adjusted prices would be (in today's dollars) for each of the dream machines. I may look that up in a couple hours just to satisfy my curiosity.
![]()
Cache
July 29, 2010 at 4:38pm
Year Cost Adjusted Inflation %
1996 $5,070 $7,043.23 38.9%
1997 $4,944 $6,714.14 35.8%
1998 $4,934 $6,597.79 33.7%
1999 $2,399 $3,138.64 30.8%
2000 $11,987 $15,172.74 26.6%
2001 $5,712 $7,033.99 23.1%
2002 $7,728 $9,363.17 21.2%
2003 $10,985 $13,012.75 18.5%
2004 $12,328 $14,224.84 15.4%
2005 $12,870 $12,870.00 11.6%
2006 $9,850 $10,649.58 8.1%
2007 $11,595 $12,189.06 5.1%
2008 $17,285 $17,498.71 1.2%
2009 $3,525 $3,581.32 1.6%
2010 $15,782 -- 0%
![]()
lunchbox73
July 29, 2010 at 2:34pm
I'm curious what the "truth about Windows 98" was? :)
The first Dream Machine I remember reading was 2004. Good times.
![]()
fx2006
July 29, 2010 at 12:21pm
now,
can you imagine the parameters of 'dream machine' after another 10-15 years?
![]()
gendoikari1
July 29, 2010 at 11:09am
I wish there was a chart showing the system specs for every DM. Say, comparing what $5,000 got you in 1996 to what $3,500 got you in 2008.
![]()
Keith E. Whisman
July 29, 2010 at 11:32am
That would need to be more of a pie chart kinda deal but it's also pretty obvious that with the increases in costs came increases in awesomeness(es).;)
I remember reading each one of those dream machine issues. The shear prices of those computers drove me to want to work that much harder so I could afford better hardware in my PC.
Looking at the performance of the hardware in the dream machines has helped me to build awesome gaming machines over the years. It's easy to figure out what you can skimp on and what you need to spend a lot on to achieve high frame rates with high quality settings turned on in my games.
Maximum PC has always tried to go out of their way to build the most extravagant and powerful computer money can buy without concern for cost. Most people can't afford to do that, but knowing what can actually give you high performance does help to build a high end machine at a fraction of the cost of Dream Machine.
Thanks Gordon for all your hard work... I hope you realize how lucky you are to get to play on such great hardware. Just being able to touch some of that hardware makes my sweaty...
![]()
ak
July 29, 2010 at 10:41am
There should be a chart listing the rating of the looks of the case. I noticed that the aesthetics of the cases have improved consistently from the original dream machine. That is until this year's, 2010, dream machine case which is beyond ugly.
![]()
gordonung
July 29, 2010 at 1:03pm
Looks are subjective. We can vote right now. My vote is for Dream Machine 2000. No-nonsense beige box with a face full of optical drives. And I mean optical drives: SCSI CD burners, a DVD-ROM and an Ultra SCSI CD-ROM! Plus a Zip drive and a floppy drive! It's like a classic muscle car man!
![]()
lunchbox73
July 29, 2010 at 2:37pm
LOL, that is a pretty sweet case. What is that, like 4 feet tall??
![]()
Jelson
July 29, 2010 at 12:49pm
......."I noticed that the aesthetics of the cases have improved consistently from the original dream machine. That is until this year's, 2010, dream machine case which is beyond ugly.".......I could not agree more,
On a second note, I almost forgot monitors used to be that thick,....ugh, I sure don't miss having to lug those around, to many near drops.
![]()
Keith E. Whisman
July 29, 2010 at 2:50pm
Well looks are subjective. I've been told that the A10 Warthog is an ugly plane but I think it's one of the most beautiful ones out there. To me, DM2010 looks great. It's functional and appears to be engineered excellently. It appears to be easy to work with and can hold a ton of gear. In fact it can hold pretty much anything you want to put in there.
I've always judged a case by capabilities and quality over looks. That's why beige boxes lasted so long..
![]()
ak
July 29, 2010 at 3:20pm
The only redeeming quality of the DM 2010 case was that it could fit the large oversized EVGA motherboard, otherwise it was an overpriced box that you have to put together yourself. Have you taken a look at the company's website who makes the case? They are now selling the exact case MaximumPC used: http://www.mountainmods.com/maximumpc-dream-machine-2010-p-593.html
![]()
Peanut Fox
July 29, 2010 at 10:29pm
Every case over the last 5 years has been whored out after MaximumPC said it had the muster for the DM. You'd be an idiot of a salesman not to. The only reason HP started selling Black Birds in limited quantity was because MPC graced their cover with it. HP was also asking a grand for it. Yes, a grand. For just an empty box. No gear. I think they did a total run of 50 or so.
Mountain Mods has been around for a while now, and a lot of people that choose to go with their gear seem pretty happy about it. I defiantly wouldn't call them no bodies on the PC case scene. Being a smaller company, I'm sure they are ecstatic to get this kind of exposure.


















