Has anyone tried this yet? I figure since Win9x doesn't support multiple cores or multiple processors that the P4EE 3.73 ghz is probably the fastest single core CPU it will run on with the 2.1ghz hotfix installed. Is there a single core Athlon 64 that's faster?
I don't believe there's a single core A64 that can match that P4. But the heat from that Prescott at that speed is awfully annoying.
wrote:I don't believe there's a single core A64 that can match that P4. But the heat from that Prescott at that speed is awfully annoying.
I was just looking around for some benchies and the FX-55 and FX-57 look like they might be faster, cooler and draw less power. Does anyone have either of those?
the fastest single core cpu in the netburst family is the 3.46EE, as its 3 level cache structure is more efficient, while prescott's 2mb l2 cache has higher latency.
as for the 3.46ee, i consider it to be generally comparable to an overclocked athlon64-939-e6 running at 200*13 or 250*10. however, a fx57 should be faster than both.
wrote:I don't believe there's a single core A64 that can match that P4. But the heat from that Prescott at that speed is awfully annoying.
No worse than some of the Phenom II chips. It's all relative.
Another thing to consider... 98SE can't use the Hyperthreading of the P4EE. I'm not sure how much difference it actually makes (I skipped the P4 generation and have pretty much ignored their existence), but if there's an A64 that's close in performance to the P4EE, having Hyperthreading disabled might be enough give the edge to the Athlon...
Pretty sure the 9X Windowses are completely allergic to SMP in any form, from multiple threads, to cores, to chips.
VogonsDrivers.com | Link | News Thread
Does Windows 98 run on multi-core processors at all or does it just ignore the extra cores? Would there be a multi-core CPU out there that runs faster than FX-57 utilizing only one of it's cores?
wrote:wrote:I don't believe there's a single core A64 that can match that P4. But the heat from that Prescott at that speed is awfully annoying.
No worse than some of the Phenom II chips. It's all relative.
Yup, but that Phenom II is a quadcore, so 75% of all CPU power is wasted right there.
Apparently NT4.0 and 2k also had problems working correctly with Hyperthreading, so it's really only beneficial for XP and up.
I think Win9x will usually run on multi-core systems, simply ignoring the additional cores/threads, though I don't know if it'll get along peacefully on all such systems.
If you're just looking for the fastest Win98 system, probably what you'll want is a Celeron 430/440/450 on one of those Asrock Conroe865 boards.
wrote:I think Win9x will usually run on multi-core systems, simply ignoring the additional cores/threads, though I don't know if it'll get along peacefully on all such systems.
If you're just looking for the fastest Win98 system, probably what you'll want is a Celeron 430/440/450 on one of those Asrock Conroe865 boards.
A 2.2 ghz Celeron would really be faster than an FX-57 that runs at 2.8ghz and outruns a 3.73ghz P4 Extreme?
According to the chart here
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
One of the 3.2ghz single core Xeons I have in my server would be even faster than the FX-57, but how would they be for gaming? I wouldn't think Xeons would be optimized in the same way. Would Windows 98 even run on a Xeon?
But you'd need some special board for running such a Xeon, right??
I'm not sure how suitable such a Xeon board would be for running 9x
wrote:But you'd need some special board for running such a Xeon, right??
I'm not sure how suitable such a Xeon board would be for running 9x
Yeah, the board is a Tyan Thunder dual socket 604 board. It has an AGP Pro slot, though, so I can get a decent video card in there at least and it officially supports 2gb of RAM which is enough for most games up to that time.
At stock speed, an FX-57 or P4EE might be a little bit faster. Here's a side-by-side of 3.6ghz P4 660 against a 2ghz Celeron 440... that's the closest comparison I can find. Keep in mind when looking at those results, most of those benchmarks are multithreaded, and the Celeron still puts up a pretty good showing... the difference for your purposes will be much smaller, since there's not going to be any multithreading going on.
The trick, though, is that it's pretty trivial to ramp those Celerons up to ~3ghz... usually doesn't even need any extra voltage or cooling. At that speed, the Celeron is most certainly going to wipe the floor with a P4 or A64.
wrote:Apparently NT4.0 and 2k also had problems working correctly with Hyperthreading, so it's really only beneficial for XP and up.
NT3.51, NT4 and 2K will work on a HyperThreading CPU, but because they can't tell the difference between physical CPUs and threads, they will treat the threads like independent CPUs, resulting in cache misses, and generally slowing things down.
I think one of the later patches for 2000 might make it HT aware, but XP is definitely prepared for multiple threads.
VogonsDrivers.com | Link | News Thread
wrote:wrote:Apparently NT4.0 and 2k also had problems working correctly with Hyperthreading, so it's really only beneficial for XP and up.
NT3.51, NT4 and 2K will work on a HyperThreading CPU, but because they can't tell the difference between physical CPUs and threads, they will treat the threads like independent CPUs, resulting in cache misses, and generally slowing things down.
I think one of the later patches for 2000 might make it HT aware, but XP is definitely prepared for multiple threads.
I think your are correct as Windows 2000 with SP4 seems to run great with SMP enabled.
I thought there were some patches for Win 9x/ME to support or patch maybe a better word, HT enabled CPU's and Motherboards so you didn't have to change anything in the BIOS.
No matter where you go, there you are...
