I have that exact hp ASUS motherboard with out the pcie slot. Kind of at a loss as to what to do with it TBH. It has a crummy bios, a weak 2.8ghz p4 that lacks HT and refuses to recognize any other Socket 775 pentium 4's. Which is a huge "ouch"

ODwilly wrote:

I have that exact hp ASUS motherboard with out the pcie slot. Kind of at a loss as to what to do with it TBH. It has a crummy bios, a weak 2.8ghz p4 that lacks HT and refuses to recognize any other Socket 775 pentium 4's. Which is a huge "ouch"

Update the BIOS, it should support all 90nm Prescotts but not the Cedar Mill 65nm ones.
Well the BIOS setup options is... ...nt there.

The build quality of the board seems good but without PCI-E slot its perhaps not worth using for gaming.

ah ok thanks. Glad that there is a bios update for it. Most likely will end up with 1gb or 2 of ram and Linux for someone to use as a web browser.

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

Windows 7 doesn't run so bad on Netburst though. I was once given an old HP P4 with only 1GB of RAM and onboard graphics, and Win7 seemed to be OK on it. It had other issues though, mainly related to malware and a half-assed upgrade from Vista that left some remnants behind. If it were my rig originally, I would have just stuck with XP.

True dat. My main workshop computer right now is a Dell Dimension 4700 with a 775 P4 HT 2.8GHz, 2GB of RAM, a GT210, and Windows 7 Pro 32-bit. It actually runs pretty good! If 7 runs pretty good on something like that, then Vista should run decently at least.

obobskivich wrote:

I'm actually surprised that my 5900XT scores higher in WEI under Vista than an R3xx/4xx chip. And equally surprised to hear that it looks choppy in practice; even on FX 5200 it looks fine IME.

Curiosity: where'd you find the extender for the board, and what is it properly called? I have an Asus that could use such a thing, but I've never had luck searching for one.

Just look on the picture and see whats written on the PCB

PCIEX2S PCI EXTENDER 2S

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PCI-Extender-Board-Fo … 3-/121467598042

Vista wasn't so bad performance wise if you kept the whole system lean when it came to installed programs that you didn't have millions of tool bars installed in the browser, countless malware infections, half a dozen instant messaging clients, and everything else bloated to the max. People back then never had a clue about choosing the right hardware and so bought the cheapest potato they could find but in the end Vista got the bad rep despite the fact that often the system was using barely anything over 1GB of ram on a tiny hard drive.

The only thing that was broken about Vista is that it slowly deteriorates unlike XP and 7 for "reasons".

Vista had some major bugs/quirks during its first year. Windows 8 has gone through a similar ordeal. Win7 basically is Vista so it was relatively refined at release. The interesting thing about both Win7 and 8 is they actually reduced demands on the system. Vista and prior most certainly didn't go that way.

XP has/had the same rep. Heck you can find people on this very forum who dislike XP because it's supposedly bloated.

I don't agree that Vista degrades over time. I have some computers at work running ~4 year old Vista installs. These computers don't have users continuously installing junk software though and that's the real key. Or doing crazy stuff like running the battery dead every day and corrupting the filesystem. Or pirating viruses for fun. Etc.

I think the SSE2 requirement of recent software versions might stimulate some renewed interest in the Pentium 4. As a cheap internet box, a P4 system can probably handle most of the modern web where earlier systems would stumble.

Seriously? I think Core 2 is more likely and certainly a lot nicer. Core 2 is ancient too these days.

The cheap AMD APU and even Baytrail Pentium/Celeron things out there would give you a better experience than all but the top end P4s too.

swaaye wrote:

Seriously? I think Core 2 is more likely and certainly a lot nicer. Core 2 is ancient too these days.

Its old but still has some might. P4 are more like space heaters.

I still use a Core 2 system as my daily rig. 😜 I have a laptop with an early Core i5 as well, but the video card is out of commission.

Lol My main gaming and general use computer is a Core 2 Duo also. Who says they are ancient? If I can run skyrim on it, it's not "ancient" ok? 😜

I play 2011-2012 games on mine. Core 2 Quad might be old but computer processors are changing much slower now

King_Corduroy wrote:

Lol My main gaming and general use computer is a Core 2 Duo also. Who says they are ancient? If I can run skyrim on it, it's not "ancient" ok? 😜

Yeah I have a Q6600 around yet myself. Core 2 is ancient in that it is about 8 years old now! Time flies.

Games tend to be mostly GPU limited anyway. You can certainly still play almost anything on a Core 2 with a modern GPU.

Q6600 here. With a decent video card (i.e. GTX 660) you can play more recent games i.e. Far Cry 3. Who knows, it might even pull off Assassin's Creed Unity. 😜 And besides, games nowadays are more GPU-dependent than anything. Heck, with something like a GTX 980, you could probably play just about anything.

Sutekh94 wrote:

Who knows, it might even pull off Assassin's Creed Unity.

Kind of doubt that one

swaaye wrote:

Seriously? I think Core 2 is more likely and certainly a lot nicer. Core 2 is ancient too these days.

The cheap AMD APU and even Baytrail Pentium/Celeron things out there would give you a better experience than all but the top end P4s too.

Yeah, Core 2 is ancient in that it is eight years old, but it's still fine for general use.

Compared yesterday: Two machines with Linux Mint 17 installed. One a Pentium D 945 3.4 GHz with 2 gigs of RAM, the other a Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 GHz with 2 gigs of RAM. So, a top end P4 system against a low end C2D. The C2D system was a lot more responsive and about 2-3 times faster. Youtube does work in Firefox with Flash in HD without video acceleration, whereas I had to pull a lot of tricks to even get 480p running smoothly on the P4.

oerk wrote:

Compared yesterday: Two machines with Linux Mint 17 installed. One a Pentium D 945 3.4 GHz with 2 gigs of RAM, the other a Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 GHz with 2 gigs of RAM. So, a top end P4 system against a low end C2D. The C2D system was a lot more responsive and about 2-3 times faster. Youtube does work in Firefox with Flash in HD without video acceleration, whereas I had to pull a lot of tricks to even get 480p running smoothly on the P4.

My dual Prestonia Xeon can handle 720p on YT just fine, and 1080p is watchable (it isn't great, but it's watchable). That's under Vista with zero optimization running a GeForce FX (which might as well be a rock when it comes to h.264 or Flash acceleration). I'm also extremely skeptical of "2-3 times faster" - in objective measurement, an E6850 is 30% to about half-over again the D 945: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/524/Intel_Co … tium_D_945.html and: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2045/8 and note that those differences can get smaller in some games.

Perhaps your installation on the Pentium D was not configured correctly, or there was some other factor pulling the performance down. 😊

2-3 times faster subjectively, not objectively 😉

I also suspect the open-source radeon driver as a culprit.

Haven't compared with Windows yet, I suspect Windows would be a bit snappier.

Youtube 720p plays perfectly on my P4 3066 and that is an old single core with only 533 MHz FSB. The P4 Prescott 550 3.4 Ghz we use in the lunch room at work also plays Youtube 720p just fine, and this P4 Vista system diddnt have any issues with handeling Youtube 720p with the X300 installed.

My experience is that most Pentium 4 with Hyper Threading can handle Youtube 720p while the ones without struggle.

This is using Flash not sure about HTML5.