NJRoadfan wrote:

The 865 is the last to support PC-PCI DMA and Windows 9x.

875 as well.

And let's not forget the $15 bonus. 🤣

The only bits of the P4 era that are going to be worth anything is already sought after to some degree particularly the high end boards but the rest of it won't be worth much at all. Those high end cases from that era though fetch a pretty good price even now like the Thermaltake Xaser series.

The question will be if there is going to be a significant number of people who will be interested in that hardware when they can just as easily go with Athlon/Phenom or Core 2 for the same cost. I much rather build around something with a bit more punch but I already landed some P4 junk like everyone else.

TELVM wrote:

And let's not forget the $15 bonus. 🤣

Well there you go, you're sitting on a cool $720 assuming you can collect 😉

nforce4max wrote:

The only bits of the P4 era that are going to be worth anything is already sought after to some degree particularly the high end boards but the rest of it won't be worth much at all. Those high end cases from that era though fetch a pretty good price even now like the Thermaltake Xaser series.

The question will be if there is going to be a significant number of people who will be interested in that hardware when they can just as easily go with Athlon/Phenom or Core 2 for the same cost. I much rather build around something with a bit more punch but I already landed some P4 junk like everyone else.

yea ironicly, my P4 3.2 is unpowered ever since I got my opteron 144 system up and running, I just dont see the need for my Pentium 4 anymore 🤣

swaaye wrote:

NJRoadfan wrote:

The 865 is the last to support PC-PCI DMA and Windows 9x.

875 as well.

Technically speaking, its southbridges that supported PC-PCI DMA. ICH5R was the last, which was used in conjunction with the 8xx series northbridges, and some server ones from the same era. The 6300ESB southbridge for servers that can be used with the same northbridges does not support it.

I have attached a specification list of the P4 motherboards collected from the company lot. Unfortunately, the socket 939 is without a CPU. Everything else has a CPU. Aside from the rack mount systems, it sounds like the dual channel DDR400 boards are the best to form a web browser box out of. These correspond to the Intel 865G, 875P, 915G, 915GL, E7210, and ServerWorks 1000HT chipsets. I am fairly CPU illiterate beyond a Pentium III. What are the fastest possible CPUs I can use in these systems?

For the i915 boards, the Acer/Gigabyte 8I915AE is limited to 2 GB, which makes the Asus P5GL-MX more appealing with a 4 GB limit and PCIe x16. The 3rd i915G board is an Intel D915GAG, however the PCIe x16 slot was never soldered on. It has only a PCIe x1 slot, 2 PCI slots, and an onboard Intel GMA900. Is the Intel GMA900 any good, or is a PCIe x1 graphics card preferred in such situation?

For the i865G (Gigabyte 8IG1000MK) and i875P (Intel S875WP1-E) boards, both are AGP 8x and support 4 GB, so does one platform support faster CPUs than the other? Are the i865/875 considered faster or more stable than the i915?

Lastly, there are two PCI-X boards, which I am hoping will function with the only PCI-X card I know of, the Parhelia 256. It would be fun to setup a system just to be able to use a PCI-X graphics card. I already have the graphics card. One board is based on the Intel E7210 and the other the ServerWorks HT1000, which I have presumed the Opteron 185/190 is the fastest available CPU. What is the best CPU for the E7210?

Based on your responses, it seems that the rest of the boards are junk - i845, SiS 661FX, and VIA KM266/KM400/KT400 and probably of limited collection interest in the coming decades. I didn't realise SiS was still making chipsets. Was the 661FX not well received?

The max cpu the 800fsb 478 boards support is a 3.4ghz Prescott p4 which are still around $20ish, the 3.2 can be had for half that or less even. The intel gma900 is pretty much garbage in my experience, but much much better than the Extreme Graphics. The general rule of thumb with SiS chipsets of the era seemed to be slightly lower performance all around vs their intel counter parts but I never have had any problems with the via/sis 478 chipsets I used.

Does anyone actually have fond memories of the P4 hardware era? Probably not, which means there won't be any nostalgia for it in the future. Most people in the know during that time went with an Athlon (except me, because I hung onto my PIII until Core came out). AMD K7 hardware is probably the stuff to keep. If you are going to keep anything intel, you might as well stick with the i820 (caminogate) that used RAMBUST, or even the weird hack job that paired the pee4 with SDRAM. Those will have historical value. Nobody is crazy enough to hang onto that kind of crap. Maybe a P4 Xeon would be interesting too.

The later P4 stuff, generally the second version of the P4 2800 onwards, wiped the floor with everything else so hard that it wasn't even funny... Actually, it was very funny to me at the time as I developed a strong hatred of AMD for a while there. Which wasn't without good reason. The Athlon XP was a joke and the Athlon 64 (X2 and FX in particular) were a complete waste of valuable resources.

^Don't recycle unless not working. After all, at least here in the states, in the early 2000s you could go into just about any Goodwill with $10 and walk out with a fully functioning 486 system. Back then, you could even find vintage Macintosh systems spaning from the 80s to early 90s for the $5 to $10 range as well.

Production quantities aside though, the Pentium 4's poor (I don't beleive it was deserved but people loved to hate NetBurst) reputation will add a cap to the value for some time to come. Another issue I see is that it was towards the end of the P4 era/beginning of the Core 2 era that even mainstream consumer laptops started to become cheap enough most people could ditch the desktop. Unfortunately, even when space is not an issue, the ability to play your games on the toilet trumps most advantages a desktop would have.

HighTreason wrote:

The later P4 stuff, generally the second version of the P4 2800 onwards, wiped the floor with everything else so hard that it wasn't even funny... Actually, it was very funny to me at the time as I developed a strong hatred of AMD for a while there. Which wasn't without good reason. The Athlon XP was a joke and the Athlon 64 (X2 and FX in particular) were a complete waste of valuable resources.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd,817-18.html

Gamers only wanted one thing, best fps per buck and AMD provided both, best performance and price.

kixs wrote:

HighTreason wrote:

The later P4 stuff, generally the second version of the P4 2800 onwards, wiped the floor with everything else so hard that it wasn't even funny... Actually, it was very funny to me at the time as I developed a strong hatred of AMD for a while there. Which wasn't without good reason. The Athlon XP was a joke and the Athlon 64 (X2 and FX in particular) were a complete waste of valuable resources.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd,817-18.html

Gamers only wanted one thing, best fps per buck and AMD provided both, best performance and price.

I'm already slowly building a 478 based PC for my "end of the line" 98 PC. Non HT CPU as 98 can only handle single cores and GeForce 6800 Ultra as this is the last NVidia card supported natively in 98. I doubt I'm the only Intel/NVidia guy out there that will do the same.
The nice thing about this PC is I can duel boot into WinXP, something I'll definitely miss in a few years time and want to go back to, Just like I enjoy messing round in 9x these days.

I find my self siding with Spiderman again.

While I was running K8 setups as gaming rig from late 2003 all the way until the release of the Core 2 Duo most of my friends were running different Netburst setups and they seemed happy enough. For most other stuff than gaming (and Math Lab) the Netburst CPUs were very competetive and I have mostly good memories when it comes to tinkering with Intel hardware from the early to mid XP era.

Netburst was a crack pot idea from the start but Intels execution of this crack pot idea was more or less flawless (except for the Rambus debacle).

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Does anyone actually have fond memories of the P4 hardware era?

I do - after having built two different Athlon based systems in the early 2000s (Athlon 1300 then Athlon XP1500+), I went back to Intel with a P4 2.8ghz late 2002 (ASUS P4G8X), then a P4 3.2ghz late 2003 (ASUS P4C800-E). I remember liking the P4 much better than the Athlon (which seemed to not play so nicely with windows or some games). I remember setting up my first raid arrays, switching from PATA to SATA, and from ME to XP. I used this machine for many years and actually still own it, and use it occasionally as a secondary computer.

I have to say I don't really understand the current interest for the PII and PIII era - I actually let go of my old 440BX system a few months ago, but decided to keep the I875P one...

HighTreason wrote:

http://asouniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bullshit.jpg […]
Show full quote

kixs wrote:

HighTreason wrote:

The later P4 stuff, generally the second version of the P4 2800 onwards, wiped the floor with everything else so hard that it wasn't even funny... Actually, it was very funny to me at the time as I developed a strong hatred of AMD for a while there. Which wasn't without good reason. The Athlon XP was a joke and the Athlon 64 (X2 and FX in particular) were a complete waste of valuable resources.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd,817-18.html

Gamers only wanted one thing, best fps per buck and AMD provided both, best performance and price.

no every gamer ran athlon 64, it was faster, the Pentium 4 was only faster in a very few area's but overall was overshadowed by the Athlon 64. The one spot intel had the upperhand was in video and picture editing.

It's about to explode.

The facts and figures simply do not back this up. The Athlon 64 was actually slower than the Athlon XP at the same clock. Furthermore, the X2 fails to achieve four figure numbers in Passmark, possibly due to AMDs insistence on sticking to DDR 1 long after its shelf life had expired. I never saw one that could run Crysis well anyway, I even own one that I never use. Never really saw the Pentium D struggle and the single core processors were a similar story with other applications. The Athlon 64 fails by default anyway simply because x86 is, by definition, general purpose. The CPU simply fails at being general purpose as it is only good in a very limited number of tasks, only stupid people bought it; Generally the kind of people that will overclock something to death, gain a 1% advantage over a different system which runs at stock speed and then walk around acting like they have something awesome when in reality the other guy, probably a P4 guy, is sitting patiently chuckling to himself because he knows the overclocker's machine is going to break in about five minutes anyway. They are probably from the same crowd that think SLiFire, or whatever it was called, is a good idea, probably they buy ASUS or Gigabyte motherboards... The same idiots who think putting the PSU on the bottom of the chassis is a good idea... Almost certainly the same idiots why cried like little girls when 3DFX died because they were too stupid to see it coming. Strangely I also don't know anyone who owned an Athlon 64 back then who's machine is still running, they all died years ago whilst I stood behind them laughing in their ears as my 920 carried on without so much as even a fan failure... 9 years in I had to patch up the motherboard a little, but it's still running, which is more than I can say for the Athlon 64 machines I had or the ones other people around me owned.

The only other reason people used it is likely because they were cheapskates who didn't understand the concept of building a machine of any particular quality, resulting in some of the worst hardware ever devised being produced, the whole platform was unreliable and slow, it also ran hotter than hell.

HighTreason wrote:

http://asouniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bullshit.jpg It's about to explode. […]
Show full quote

It's about to explode.

The facts simply do not back this up. The Athlon 64 was actually slower than the Athlon XP at the same clock. Furthermore, the X2 fails to achieve four figure numbers in Passmark, possibly due to AMDs insistence on sticking to DDR 1 long after its shelf life had expired. I never saw one that could run Crysis well anyway, I even own one that I never use. Never really saw the Pentium D struggle and the single core processors were a similar story with other applications. The Athlon 64 fails by default anyway simply because x86 is, by definition, general purpose. The CPU simply fails at being general purpose as it is only good in a very limited number of tasks. The only reason people used it is because they were cheapskates who didn't understand the concept of building a machine of any particular quality, resulting in some of the worst hardware ever devised being produced, the whole platform was unreliable and slow, it also ran hotter than hell.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/ … lon64-3200.html

Conclusion
In this article we have just discussed a new AMD CPU targeted for the mass market aka Athlon 64 3200+. Unlike Athlon 64 FX-51, this processor features a single-channel memory controller supporting unregistered memory modules and doesn’t require expensive 6-layer mainboard PCBs. All this may make Athlon 64 3200+ a more popular solution that Athlon 64 FX-51.

I have to say that the performance of Athlon 64 3200+ is slightly lower than that of Athlon 64 FX-51. Mostly it is not because of the memory controller with lower bandwidth, but because of the lower core clock frequency. Since the memory subsystem latency of Athlon 64 3200+ is considerably lower than that of Athlon 64 FX/Opteron processors, the performance of the two is about the same on average. That is exactly why AMD hasn’t yet released Athlon 64 with 2.2GHz core clock. For the same reason AMD will not roll out faster Athlon 64 models that soon, because Athlon 64 FX family positioned as High-End stuff, will have to be faster than Athlon 64.

Also I have to stress that Athlon 64 3200+ is much faster than Athlon XP 3200+ in most benchmarks, even though both these processors have similar rating. In fact, Athlon 64 3200+ can easily compete with Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz: the tests prove it hundred percent. Of course, in some applications NetBurst architecture appears more suitable, but there definitely is a number of tasks where Athlon 64 3200+ is an indisputable performance leader.

All in all, Athlon 64 3200+ can be considered a good choice for those users who prefer AMD products. The only thing I have to mention though in conclusion is a questionable situation with the Socket754 platforms. Since the CPUs with a dual-channel memory controller cannot be used in this socket, I expect all Socket754 CPUs to be soon moved into the Budget segment. Therefore, you should consider Socket754 as a solution allowing further u

that is comparing Socket 754 athlons with single channel vs the Pentium 4

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1517

again the A64 4000 walking all over the prescott

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1676

and again the x2 stomping the Pentium D

also your comment about DDR vs DDR2, I guess the word timing never really made sense to you did they?

For the price of good CL5 DDR2 667 you could get a kit of CL2 DDR500 from both Corsair or OCZ, or a kit of DDR600 CL 2.5. DDR2 had zero advantage over DDR until they got the speed up to 6400 aka DDR2 800. Only then at CL5 was DDR2 faster than DDR and even then the top end DDR1 kits would still trade blows with the best DDR2 800 kits.

The facts speak very diffrently from your view point, the Athlon 64 and AThlon 64 X2 dominated netburst in just about every way, there is a reason intel abandoned netburst and went back to P6, they where loosing.

As for your other comments, your inability to understand what an enthusiast is really confuses me. Your arrogant which is quite clear I'm sure to everyone. Anyone that bought a quality ASUS, DFI, MSI or Gigabyte Athlon 64 board likely still has them running fine. As for heat, again I've heard of prescotts welding themselves to the heatsink, even seen it in a few Dell and HP systems, but yet have never seen an athlon 64 weld itself to its heatsink, not once. The pentium 4 had the nickname space heater, not the athlon. I really think your confused with your facts, because evidence in no way from the other 6 billion people support them. You sound more like a foaming at the mouth intel fan boy that can't see beyond his own nose.

Moderator cleaned out poor behavior