Avoid "Palomino" type Athlon XP, and get a nForce2 motherboard.

There is a mobile version called the XP-M that runs at lower voltages (I believe 1.45 vs 1.65). If you find a motherboard that supports the mobile variant, they are a nice CPU. You have the option of running at stock speeds with cooler performance and less power draw, or overclock the CPU higher than a 1.65v could go.

Skip XP and go with Athlon 64 is my tip 😊

agent_x007 wrote:

Avoid "Palomino" type Athlon XP

why? i had an ath xp 2600 and besides the lacking of ram i was very happy; board was gigabyte nforce 2 based, gfx was gf3 ti 500 or so;

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Skip XP and go with Athlon 64 is my tip 😊

was it any better besides doing 64bit oses? for one cache was bigger, anything else?

Palomino's are hot and can't go as fast as newer Thoroughbred or Barton cores.

Athlon XP vs. Athlon 64 is kinda like comparing Core 2 Duo to Core i7 😀
Similar, but waaay different :
Bigger cache, better prediction, faster FPU (SSE2/SSE3), IMC, DDR1/DDR2, PCI-e, Dual Core (later rev. with "x2" in name), there really is a lot going on with A64's.

mrau wrote:

agent_x007 wrote:

Avoid "Palomino" type Athlon XP

why? i had an ath xp 2600 and besides the lacking of ram i was very happy; board was gigabyte nforce 2 based, gfx was gf3 ti 500 or so;

So when you have even a 2600+, you have a Thoroughbred B, Thorton or Barton core. The main reason to avoid the Palomino at lower speed (1600+ to 2100+) is the max. power consumption and, for example:
1800+, Palomino: 66.0 W, Thoroughbred: 51.0 W
1900+, Palomino: 68.0 W, Thoroughbred: 52.5 W
2000+ , Palomino: 70.0 W, Thoroughbred: 60.3 W

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Skip XP and go with Athlon 64 is my tip 😊

I concur. Better yet, just don't even bother with the older AMD stuff and use a Phenom II with PCIe instead. Get K10Stat too.

I have two Athlon 64 systems. Their only advantage is good backwards Win9x compatibility. They are easily dual-booted between Win98SE and WinXP. If I didn't already have them, I would not have gone out of my way to build them. A faster system like a Phenom II will work much better and makes more sense.

Sorry, didn't elaborate. AMD XP meaning windows XP, AMD cpu whatever would be comparable or superior to a p4. Like I said, would like to play games in the 2002-2006 era. Figure anything after that a modern rig would handle OK. I've found a rig for sale with the following:

AMD 3400+ processor on a MSI K9VGM-V motherboard. Socket AM2 (940) with VIA K8M890 chipset
VIA Chrome 9 IGP graphics
Soundblaster PCI 128
512mb of memory
80GB IDE Hard drive
VIA Rhine II 10/100 Ethernet
1x PCI slot free

Would this be a good base to start with? Only thing is Win98 is loaded not WinXP.

buckeye:

How much is the seller asking for all of that? If it's $15 or less, it might be an OK deal. You will want to upgrade the RAM, CPU, sound card, and the video card. By the time you're done, you would have been better off just getting an AM3 system with a decent Phenom II and building it the way you want.

Personally, I've found much better deals on craigslist. You just need to be patient, expand your searches, and check several times per day.

I'd use an xeon l5430 or x5460, cheap, can underclock /w software down to piv 2.0 level, but if going old school AMD, an athlon 64 LE-1640, lower power fx-55 version, single core 2.6ghz 1mb l2 cache 45w vs 104w, or athlon 64 x2 6400+ 2x 3.2ghz 1mb l2 cache 125w. AMD's later chips can also be set to piv 2.0 performance level by software.

cpu releases:
01 athlon 1400c, athlon xp 1900+, pentium iv 2.0
02 athlon xp 2800+, pentium iv 3.0
03 athlon xp 3200+, athlon 64 3200+, fx-51, pentium iv ee 3.2
04 athlon 64 4000+, fx-55, pentium iv ee 3.46
05 fx-57, athlon 64 x2 4800+, pentium iv ee 3.73
06 c2d x6800, athlon 64 x2 5600+
07 c2q qx9650, athlon 64 x2 6400+, phenom x4 9600

I got one of these specifically for games in that time period:

Nforce 4 SLi + Athlon X2 4800+ (socket 939) + 2GB DDR1

Haven't built a machine around it yet, but I'm thinking of pairing it with these:

2x XFX 7950GT 512MB silent.

For windows XP you can use AM2 and even AM3 boards (the latter would be prefered) + a fast Athlon X2 like the 6400+ or even a Phenom II X2. I chose 939 for that retro feel.

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Skip XP and go with Athlon 64 is my tip 😊

Depends which OS you want to use.. If its XP, then go with the athlon 64. Better choice would be an Intel core duo 2 as standard or an Core 2 Quad as premium.. I know back in the day games would use 1 or 2 cores, but its nice to have a smooth butter running system.

Athlon XP isnt worth if you want to run windows xp on it.. Those boards mostly didnt have more then 3 memory slots, never enough if you want to use like 4GB of memory.. ( if you decide running windows xp sp3. )

kanecvr wrote:

I got one of these specifically for games in that time period: […]
Show full quote

I got one of these specifically for games in that time period:

Nforce 4 SLi + Athlon X2 4800+ (socket 939) + 2GB DDR1

Haven't built a machine around it yet, but I'm thinking of pairing it with these:

2x XFX 7950GT 512MB silent.

For windows XP you can use AM2 and even AM3 boards (the latter would be prefered) + a fast Athlon X2 like the 6400+ or even a Phenom II X2. I chose 939 for that retro feel.

Kingston hyper x DDR1 3200 modules??

Maybe this problem is unique to me, but it has soured me on K8 systems and is the reason why I've been recommending AM3 and Phenom II instead.

The problem affects both of my K8M800 motherboards: an ABIT KV85 v2, and PC Chips M861G v1.6a. Neither one of these will run 2GB (2x1GB) RAM at 200mhz. I always have to run it at 166mhz, or I can run a single 1GB stick at 200mhz. Forget about dual-channel; neither of these boards supports it. If I use the BIOS to force 200mhz on 2GB RAM, the system becomes unstable. This happens when set to either 1T or 2T timing.

Fortunately, there aren't really any games from that time period that actually need more than 1GB RAM, so I just leave a single 1GB stick installed and try not to let it annoy me too much.

KT7AGuy wrote:

Maybe this problem is unique to me, but it has soured me on K8 systems and is the reason why I've been recommending AM3 and Phenom II instead.

The problem affects both of my K8M800 motherboards: an ABIT KV85 v2, and PC Chips M861G v1.6a. Neither one of these will run 2GB (2x1GB) RAM at 200mhz. I always have to run it at 166mhz, or I can run a single 1GB stick at 200mhz. Forget about dual-channel; neither of these boards supports it. If I use the BIOS to force 200mhz on 2GB RAM, the system becomes unstable. This happens when set to either 1T or 2T timing.

Fortunately, there aren't really any games from that time period that actually need more than 1GB RAM, so I just leave a single 1GB stick installed and try not to let it annoy me too much.

is your memory dual sided or single sided? Prior to the Venice Core Athlon 64 had issues with high density ram, it was very hit or miss. Try to stick with single sided ram or go Venice/San Diego for 754/939.

As for the diffrence between Athlon XP and Athlon 64, look at the reviews from back then. An Athlon 64 3200 can be up to 40% faster than an XP 3200, and at worst 5% faster. You also gain more reliable SATA, and a wider range of graphics card because both 754/939/AM2 have chipsets with PCIe, as a matter of fact good lucking finding AM2 with AGP 🤣. Also get a pair of 7950GT's or a pair of 7900GTX cards, or you can try to find a pair of 7800GTX 512 cards (really rare and good bragging rights)

For 2006 or older games I'd go 939, grab an A8N-SLI or a DFI Lan Party board, grab an FX-55 or FX-57 San Diego core, and 2x1gb Sticks DDR, if you can find it get the OCZ Gold DDR 600, but if you can only get DDR400 stick to the 2-2-2-5 sticks.

If you care much about decent web browsing performance or watching videos with this machine, then I recommend you go with Athlon64 as a minimum. The socket-A AthlonXP CPUs don't support SSE2. It didn't matter much back then, but it's become crippling with newer software, web browsing, and video playback.

Steam has had repeated episodes where their launcher/advertising app thingy crashed on systems without SSE2. It appears to have been an oversight in both cases but it took them months to fix it, only to have the mistake happen again later.
You're not allowed to play your games without first running the portal app so this effectively made all Steam games unplayable without SSE2. I'm not sure if it's currently working or not, but I wouldn't trust them on this point regardless. Last time it broke I found a workaround but it was a pain to deal with.

As others have mentioned, a board with Express slots is a big advantage if you need later graphics cards.

I found this ASRock board N68C-GS4 FX compatible with multitude of cpu's - Am3+, Am3, Am2 and etc. Can anyone please recommend one or two for high end windows xp gaming? A lot of choices here!

candle_86:
I'm not sure if the RAM is single-sided or double-sided. One CPU is a 3400+ Venice and the other is 3700+ Clawhammer. One set of RAM is a Kingston KVR400AK2 kit and the other is Crucial CT12864Z40B.M16FF.

buckeye:
I have a Phenom II X2 560 Black Edition that I like an awful lot. After unlocking it, all four cores run totally stable. From what I understand this CPU is also a good overclocker, but I've never tried it.

That motherboard you selected can support CPUs that draw up to 95W. Unlocking or overclocking the 560 BE might be too much for your system to handle. It doesn't matter though, as you really don't need more than a dual-core for a good WinXP system anyway.

Edit: I checked. Yep, this RAM does appear to be double-sided. I suppose that explains the problems I had. 😲

for a good Windows XP system an Athlon II X4 would be excellent.