S754 offered excellent value in it's time, but S939 will tear it apart in terms of memory bandwidth. K8 hit internal bandwidth limits with AM2 and DDR2.

I don't know what availability is like, though. My suspicion is that will be the dominant consideration when choosing between S939 and S754.

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

I think I have that same 754 processor, it makes for a very decent Windows XP gaming machine. Socket 939 really isn't that faster I found, but I haven't checked out any dual core CPUs yet.

Well, for me K8 is not fast enough for XP gaming rig (no AMD CPU is good enough for that actually). But this A64 is nice CPU for my collection and maybe it will take part in rather extensive tests.

havli wrote:

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

I think I have that same 754 processor, it makes for a very decent Windows XP gaming machine. Socket 939 really isn't that faster I found, but I haven't checked out any dual core CPUs yet.

Well, for me K8 is not fast enough for XP gaming rig (no AMD CPU is good enough for that actually). But this A64 is nice CPU for my collection and maybe it will take part in rather extensive tests.

Why would you need anything more than an A64 for an XP rig? Any game that is more demanding should surely run better on Windows Vista/7/8/10 anyway, particularly with those OSes supporting newer DirectXs and such.

Because I want games to be perfectly smooth (100+ fps) and A64 is way too slow for that. Also plenty of games dont run on win10 very well... but still need lot of performance. For example NFS U2, NFS MW, Bioshock, etc.

I understand that 😀

havli wrote:

Because I want games to be perfectly smooth (100+ fps) and A64 is way too slow for that. Also plenty of games dont run on win10 very well... but still need lot of performance. For example NFS U2, NFS MW, Bioshock, etc.

All of those games you listed would get better performance from Vista or Win7, and usually run slower in XP in comparison. And not really "XP Gaming" games anyway.

By the way, a K8 dual core @ 2.6 ghz is just as fast as most of the earlier revision, mid-range core2duo chips, a lot of K8 platforms support 8GB and 16GB ram and can run Win7/Vista.

Did not buy anything for a while, but saw these for just a few bucks so could not let them sit there:

kithylin wrote:

All of those games you listed would get better performance from Vista or Win7, and usually run slower in XP in comparison. And not really "XP Gaming" games anyway.

By the way, a K8 dual core @ 2.6 ghz is just as fast as most of the earlier revision, mid-range core2duo chips, a lot of K8 platforms support 8GB and 16GB ram and can run Win7/Vista.

I don't run any Vista/7 gaming PC at the moment ... and these games most definitely works better on XP than win 10. Also A64 X2 5000+ is much slower than C2D. For example NFS U2 avg fps -> X2 5000+ = 75 fps (22 min), C2D E6600 = 99 fps (58 min). Since I want stable 120 fps (built-in frame limiter), K8 is out of the question and Core 2 as well.. except maybe E8400 @ 4 GHz or something like that.

Cyrix200+ wrote:

Did not buy anything for a while, but saw these for just a few bucks so could not let them sit there: […]
Show full quote

Did not buy anything for a while, but saw these for just a few bucks so could not let them sit there:

That DEC cpu.... Is that gold, wich the nuts are screwed on to? Never seen that before. Looks cool. 😜

havli wrote:

kithylin wrote:

All of those games you listed would get better performance from Vista or Win7, and usually run slower in XP in comparison. And not really "XP Gaming" games anyway.

By the way, a K8 dual core @ 2.6 ghz is just as fast as most of the earlier revision, mid-range core2duo chips, a lot of K8 platforms support 8GB and 16GB ram and can run Win7/Vista.

I don't run any Vista/7 gaming PC at the moment ... and these games most definitely works better on XP than win 10. Also A64 X2 5000+ is much slower than C2D. For example NFS U2 avg fps -> X2 5000+ = 75 fps (22 min), C2D E6600 = 99 fps (58 min). Since I want stable 120 fps (built-in frame limiter), K8 is out of the question and Core 2 as well.. except maybe E8400 @ 4 GHz or something like that.

What resolution are you even running these at? NFS U2 is from 2004 and is a fairly well optimised game, it shouldn't need anything like that kind of horsepower. I don't remember ever having framerate issues on an Athlon XP 2200+ and GeForce FX something at 1024x768 or 1152x864 back in the day!

1280x1024, noAA, maximum details (including the advanced settings). Using GeForce GTX 285, so this is clearly a CPU test. And btw - this benchmark was performed on windows 7.
I can post fps of other CPUs, but I'll rather create separate thread for that. It is OT here. 😊

Cyrix200+ wrote:

Did not buy anything for a while, but saw these for just a few bucks so could not let them sit there: […]
Show full quote

Did not buy anything for a while, but saw these for just a few bucks so could not let them sit there:

Gold electroplate, they made real quality back then.

havli wrote:

1280x1024, noAA, maximum details (including the advanced settings). Using GeForce GTX 285, so this is clearly a CPU test. And btw - this benchmark was performed on windows 7.
I can post fps of other CPUs, but I'll rather create separate thread for that. It is OT here. 😊

Last time I played it, it was on AXP 3200+/9800Pro. 1280x1024, maximum settings, don't remember if I used any AA though. Seemed to run pretty smoothly, I didn't care to measure FPS though.

brostenen wrote:

Cyrix200+ wrote:

Did not buy anything for a while, but saw these for just a few bucks so could not let them sit there: […]
Show full quote

Did not buy anything for a while, but saw these for just a few bucks so could not let them sit there:

That DEC cpu.... Is that gold, wich the nuts are screwed on to? Never seen that before. Looks cool. 😜

Even the cheap Alpha chips were sexy beasts and pretty monstrous on performance as well. HP should have never dropped it for Itanium.

brostenen wrote:

Cyrix200+ wrote:

Did not buy anything for a while, but saw these for just a few bucks so could not let them sit there:

<snip>

That DEC cpu.... Is that gold, wich the nuts are screwed on to? Never seen that before. Looks cool. 😜

Yes, I had never seen one, just pictures before... I have no use for it unfortunately and I have no idea if it is in working condition...

Today a friend of mine has made me a surprise, bringing me as gift a box of cables, drives, one case, etc - the thing I like more is this motherboard:

I would like to make a retro-build with an architecture like this one, but I don't know if that motherboard is better than this one I've found time ago (maybe this is more confortable for the AT/ATX power connector):

I also got this video card I can't recognize, but It seems almost equal to another one I've already own:

And this little C2D E2160:

I don't know Lucky Star, but I can tell you the TX97 series is pretty solid. My TX97 was used when I got it 15 years ago and still going strong.

As they're TX based, both don't cache beyond 64MB, but that should be fine for DOS and perhaps early Windows 98 gaming.

gdjacobs wrote:

I don't know Lucky Star, but I can tell you the TX97 series is pretty solid. My TX97 was used when I got it 15 years ago and still going strong.

As they're TX based, both don't cache beyond 64MB, but that should be fine for DOS and perhaps early Windows 98 gaming.

Thanks, I'm going to use this one then - no problem for the memory caching limit, I'll use the build ONLY as pure MS-DOS/FreeDOS system.

Nice haul,specialty ss7 board.

Indrid Cold wrote:

I also got this video card I can't recognize, but It seems almost equal to another one I've already own:

image

Looks like Radeon X1050 or something like that.

rein_ein wrote:

Nice haul,specialty ss7 board.

They're both Socket 7, not super.