FFXIhealer wrote:

Games to run on this system include: Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind Doom 3 Half-Life 2 F.E. […]
Show full quote

Games to run on this system include:
Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Doom 3
Half-Life 2
F.E.A.R. (barely meets hardware requirements)

Gaming Resolution: 1360 x 768 x 32bit (16:9)

Most of these games would benefit from a newer machine and windows XP. Since these games are pretty old now, I'd suggest building a rig that can run them all-out. Also, be weary that some of these games either don't support widescreen naively or at all, so a 4:3 or 5:4 monitor is a good investment - something that can do 1600x1200. Personally, I recommend a socket AM2 or 775 machine with a nvidia 8800 card, or better yet - a radeon 4870 / 5850 / GTX 460 (depending on what framerate you're comfortable with - I personally don't like it when it dips under 60, and prefer 100+) and windows XP SP3. While Morrowind and HL2 will run fine on your socket A machine with a X850XT, FEAR will struggle and Doom 3 won't be as enjoyable as it would be on a much faster card.

These parts are old / outdated and very, very cheap now. You can pick up a Radeon 4870 for like 10$ (at least where I live) and a 5850 for about 30. A good AM2 board + CPU should be about 20$ - same for a LGA 775 setup with a lower-end core 2 duo. A good 4:3 1600x1200 LCD monitor (something from 2008) is anyware between 35 to 100$, depending on make, model, age and specifications - but you can also use a CRT (I personally am not a fan of CRTs) witch most people give away for free.

Seriously, don't bother with socket A unless you want to build a really fast win98 machine (and the X800/X850 is win98 compatible, but that 1800+ is far to slow for them).

Good luck with your build.

Tetrium wrote:

I never used that particular board and the one time I used a KT333 board I ended up using a Palomino 2000+, but apparently your […]
Show full quote

I never used that particular board and the one time I used a KT333 board I ended up using a Palomino 2000+, but apparently your board does support Thoroughbred (dunno about Barton). The 0.18nm is probably the Palomino. Thoroughbred and Barton are 0.13nm.
These CPUs were locked and I don't remember if I ever tried an Athlon XP on a board that supposedly had troubles with the higher multipliers.
The A7Vs I used (KT133, 100MHz FSB max) couldn't get the unlocked Thunderbirds (=predecessor or Palomino) running at the highest CPU multipliers, but this may not apply to your setup.

Well you could use your old chip the same way we do...stoooore it and sometimes look at it! 😁

Yeah, what I have now is the Palomino chip at 180nm (also known as 0.18µm). The difference is that µm is micrometer and nm is nanometer (1,000 nm = 1 µm). Still better than the 250nm Pentium II and III from my older build. I can find Thoroughbred chips fairly cheaply on Ebay. A 2600+ is around $10.

And I remember the story of this build a bit. My previous system with a 350MHz Pentium II system was getting slow and dated and I remember Final Fantasy XI being soon to be released. So I planned a new system with a certain budget and ended up getting the 1800+ Athlon XP (not the fastest available), the 80GB HDD, the 256MB of RAM, and an ATI Radeon 7500. I wasn't too keen on the Pentium 4, as I heard the AMD Athlon was a more efficient and definitely cheaper proc. And with the massively long pipeline of the P4, I'm not sure why anyone would want one, other than how cheap they are now.

I remember why I kept using mid-level processors - because the highest-end ones were always stupid-expensive. Then you look back at these systems and all you want to do is throw out the slower one and max out the system. Upgrading my P2 system to the 600MHz P3 drastically increased the gaming performance and benchmark scores , but it was also an architecture upgrade. I don't think Thoroughbred is an architecture improvement, is it? It is a die shrink. I know it doesn't add any instruction improvements. Both Palomino and Thoroughbred have MMX, 3DNOW, and SSE.

Barton also has twice the cache.

elod wrote:

Barton also has twice the cache.

Yeah, but would it work on the board - that's the question.

Afaicr Thoroughbred is basically a die-shrink and Barton is basically a Thoroughbred with twice the cache.
When I went from a P2-350 to a Katmai 550, the performance improvement was very noticeable! Even when the system was loading the OS.

I've also used many non-maxed CPUs for the same reasons, but to me it's not always best to spend a fortune to get something that's only marginally better.

Also sometimes the maxed-out chips have substantially more thermal output, making the system more noisy which I don't like. But generally speaking I just work with what I have and usually it's fine like that.

I don't know which CPU might be the fastest that will work on your board. One can make educated guesses by using google, but that doesn't always guarantee anything.

My guess is that a faster Thoroughbred will work and imo Bartons are always nice to have anyway.

Btw I fixed the erroneous "nm"s with "µm"s in my last reply on the previous page, silly me 😊

any 266mhz CPU should work so grab a nice Mobile Barton

The ABIT KX7-333 v1.1 board can support a 2600+ Thoroughbred or Thorton with a BIOS update:

http://www.cpu-upgrade.com/mb-ABIT/KX7-333_v1.1.html.

http://abit.ws/page/en/motherboard/motherboar … &pPRODINFO=BIOS

ftp://91.121.194.115/pub/download/bios/kx7-333/

KT7AGuy wrote:

The ABIT KX7-333 v1.1 board can support a 2600+ Thoroughbred or Thorton with a BIOS update: […]
Show full quote

The ABIT KX7-333 v1.1 board can support a 2600+ Thoroughbred or Thorton with a BIOS update:

http://www.cpu-upgrade.com/mb-ABIT/KX7-333_v1.1.html.

http://abit.ws/page/en/motherboard/motherboar … &pPRODINFO=BIOS

ftp://91.121.194.115/pub/download/bios/kx7-333/

Except according to CPU-z, it's NOT a v1.1 version. It's a 1.0 version. The BIOS options are limited to User-defined options like this:

CPU Operating Speed:
USER DEFINE (unlocks options below)
1500+(133) {133MHz FSB, 4:2:1 Divider, x10.0 CPU Multiplier)
1600+(133) {133MHz FSB, 4:2:1 Divider, x10.5 CPU Multiplier)
1700+(133) {133MHz FSB, 4:2:1 Divider, x11.0 CPU Multiplier)
1800+(133) {133MHz FSB, 4:2:1 Divider, x11.5 CPU Multiplier)
1900+(133) {133MHz FSB, 4:2:1 Divider, x12.0 CPU Multiplier)
2000+/2100+(133) {133MHz FSB, 4:2:1 Divider, x12.5/13.0 CPU Multiplier)
2200+(133) {133MHz FSB, 4:2:1 Divider, "Over x13" CPU Multiplier)

CPU FSB Clock (MHZ) {range from 100 to 250 with 1MHz increments}

Ratio (FSB : AGP : PCI) {3:2:1 - 4:2:1 - 5:2:1}

CPU Multiplier {x5 to x12.5/x13, then "Over x13" as options with 0.5 multiplier increments}

CPU Core Voltage {1.100V - 1.850V in 0.025V increments}

I/O Voltage {3.50V or 3.65V}

DDR Voltage {2.55V to 2.85V in 0.1V increments}

The MB socket is "Socket A - 462"

And I've been able to figure out on my own that the AMD Athlon advertized FSB speed is actually twice what it really is, so I can put the MB at 166MHz with a 5:2:1 divider and a "266MHz FSB" Athlon SHOULD run. I tried upping the FSB to 166 and lowering the CPU multiplier and raising the divider to compensate, but the system failed to POST after that. Had to reset the CMOS.

I should probably add that I AM using faster RAM sticks. I have DDR-400 in there running at 166 (FSB+33) due to SPD settings. So they'll easily work with a 166FSB if I were to manually configure for a "333" CPU and it magically POSTs.

UPDATE
So apparently I wasn't even running the latest BIOS revision for this board, so I just pulled a floppy out of an older system and updated it. There are a few changes to the screens, which I think will allow me to run more CPUs. I'm still debating whether or not to get a Barton 3000+ CPU and see if I can fudge the system into working. It'd only require a 13x multiplier with a 166FSB setting and 1.65V, so it should be easily doable.

just gonna throw this out there. No matter what you do this is going to be pretty low end for a Windows XP gaming machine. Your working in a single core world on an OS that takes good advantage of multiple cores. Based on your original posted specs I personally think a much better use of this platform would be a high end Windows 98/ME machine and then either run an Athlon X2, a Phenom, Core 2 Duo, or even and early Core I build for your Windows XP machine.

Back to your question the fastest CPU your going to get is a 3000 or 3200+ barton as others have said should work even if it's not officially supported. I personally feel an Radeon 850 isn't anything to write home about for Windows XP but your kinda stuck with what you can get for AGP. PCI Express became mainstream about 3 or 4 years into Windows XP's long life so at best your talking about an early Windows XP system.

All of the Windows XP systems I've ever owned or used were single-core systems. I've only ever seen Core 2 Duo XP systems in business machines well after Intel came out with their Core iX series and Windows 7 was already the dominant OS.

Believe it or not, the current Athlon XP 1800+ runs Windows XP just fine for what I do with it. I mean, it's not like I can super multi-task in IE 9, right? And having 2GB of RAM instead of the original 256MB is a God-send by comparison. But yeah, if I can get a 3000+ Barton to run on this system, even with manual CPU settings, that'd be something, right? 512KB of L2 Cache and quite possibly this new 9800xt card coming in and it'll make a great 2002 gaming system.

And my other Windows XP system is also a single core, though it's a lot more powerful: a Pentium M 2.1GHz - using that PCI-Express x16 bus for a 7800GTX card. That system was a BEAST until I got on board with my first i7-860.

Really, I'm just looking to use this system as a stepping stone between my Windows 98 Voodoo2 gaming system and the laptop, if you will. Elder Scrolls III Morrowind runs fine on the current POS Radeon 9550XL card. Even Doom 3 runs, though at low settings and resolution (the aformentioned POS graphics card). I just want to push the system to see what it's fully capable of doing, not necessarily ripping everything out of the case and replacing it all. If that were the case, I could just turn to my Skylake system and play on my GTX 980ti. I mean, come on. I could virtualize that entire WinXP system INSIDE the Skylake system with more power, more memory, and power to spare. This isn't about making an ultimate Windows XP build - it's about maxing out the system I currently have with a few accessories. I hate this 9550 - that's why I started the thread - to figure out what card would be better suited for this system given its limitations. And like the Pentium II system that eventually got a CPU max bump to a 600MHz Pentium III (and I got a massive increase in gaming power from it), I'm actually considering a CPU bump, but only if the MB can handle it. I think the fastest CPU that will work is the 3000+ Barton, but I won't know unless I actually get one from EBAY and put it in and try it out. I'm tempted to do that. There's a Barton 3000 right now for about $20 USD.

UPDATE: LMAO I just tried to install Firefox on this old system and it said HELL NO! because the CPU doesn't have SSE2 extensions. Wow....

FFXIhealer wrote:

All of the Windows XP systems I've ever owned or used were single-core systems. I've only ever seen Core 2 Duo XP systems in bu […]
Show full quote

All of the Windows XP systems I've ever owned or used were single-core systems. I've only ever seen Core 2 Duo XP systems in business machines well after Intel came out with their Core iX series and Windows 7 was already the dominant OS.

Believe it or not, the current Athlon XP 1800+ runs Windows XP just fine for what I do with it. I mean, it's not like I can super multi-task in IE 9, right? And having 2GB of RAM instead of the original 256MB is a God-send by comparison. But yeah, if I can get a 3000+ Barton to run on this system, even with manual CPU settings, that'd be something, right? 512KB of L2 Cache and quite possibly this new 9800xt card coming in and it'll make a great 2002 gaming system.

And my other Windows XP system is also a single core, though it's a lot more powerful: a Pentium M 2.1GHz - using that PCI-Express x16 bus for a 7800GTX card. That system was a BEAST until I got on board with my first i7-860.

Really, I'm just looking to use this system as a stepping stone between my Windows 98 Voodoo2 gaming system and the laptop, if you will. Elder Scrolls III Morrowind runs fine on the current POS Radeon 9550XL card. Even Doom 3 runs, though at low settings and resolution (the aformentioned POS graphics card). I just want to push the system to see what it's fully capable of doing, not necessarily ripping everything out of the case and replacing it all. If that were the case, I could just turn to my Skylake system and play on my GTX 980ti. I mean, come on. I could virtualize that entire WinXP system INSIDE the Skylake system with more power, more memory, and power to spare. This isn't about making an ultimate Windows XP build - it's about maxing out the system I currently have with a few accessories. I hate this 9550 - that's why I started the thread - to figure out what card would be better suited for this system given its limitations. And like the Pentium II system that eventually got a CPU max bump to a 600MHz Pentium III (and I got a massive increase in gaming power from it), I'm actually considering a CPU bump, but only if the MB can handle it. I think the fastest CPU that will work is the 3000+ Barton, but I won't know unless I actually get one from EBAY and put it in and try it out. I'm tempted to do that. There's a Barton 3000 right now for about $20 USD.

UPDATE: LMAO I just tried to install Firefox on this old system and it said HELL NO! because the CPU doesn't have SSE2 extensions. Wow....

Those older processors do surprisingly well when you push them along with a decent graphics card. Last night I started playing FEAR on my turbocharged P3 setup (1.575GHz, 2GB DDR, oc'ed 6800GT, and an X-Fi) and it actually ran a lot better than I thought it would. In fact I'm going to complete the game on this machine just to see how performance fares during some of the more demanding parts of the game.

Not sure how it would run on a 9800XT, but hey--give it a shot and let us know!

I love the Pentium M. In fact I like it so much that I bent over backwards to find a Pentium M based system that I could use as a desktop. I am running Windows 98 on it though.

Hey, what's a good benchmark for this time period? The only ones I downloaded were 3DMark99 Max and 3DMark 2000. If I win this Ebay auction and get a working 9800xt, I want to benchmark before and afters so I can compare the numbers.

For DirectX 9 GPU's use 3DMark 03 and for DX7/8 hardware 3DMark 01 SE is the best option.

3DM 2000 is too much CPU bound on newer cards.
3DM 99 Max... only Rasterizer score is relevant/meaningful (and that's if CPU is fast enough).

XP is pretty versatile. Up until last month, I was dual-booting Win98SE and WinXP SP3 on an IBM NetVista A40 with a 1ghz Coppermine and 512mb PC133 RAM. XP ran fine on it if you didn't multitask too much or have too much background stuff running. I was mostly using it for converting my vast CD collection to MP3. However, I asked myself, "What is the point of this?", and realized that the disk space consumed by XP was better spent on Win98SE which could do the same thing. Thus, it now only boots Win98SE.

FireFox 28 was the last version that would work with P3 and Athlon XP systems.

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/28.0/

my first time using XP was with a P3 600 with 128mb of memory, the last system I used it as main OS was a Core i5 Sandy Bridge with 8GB (4 as a ramdisk), 10 years apart, obviously with the many changes with the service packs (I think the original release didn't support multicore/multi CPU)

the lack of SSE2 is a shame though, the P4 Northwood I have can run the latest Firefox decently, and I think even some games those CPUs can handle might require SSE2 later on... something like a Barton is overall a nicer CPU than the Northwood IMO, a shame it's missing it.

overall I don't think there is a point of going higher than a 6800 for this kind of hardware (or maybe a 7600), not to say the best AGP (3850?) couldn't bring benefits specially for higher res, but...

another benchmark that I used to run around 2003 was Aquamark 3, I think it's DX8.... but mostly 3dm2001se and 3dm03

KT7AGuy wrote:

FireFox 28 was the last version that would work with P3 and Athlon XP systems.

That's better than Firefox 2.0 - the last one supported on Windows 98 FE. 🤣 >.< I use that on the Win98 PC I have and it's much more usable than Internet Explorer 6 is.

If I win this auction (Radeon 9800XT), I think I'll go ahead and pick up the Barton 3000+ chip as well. It's cheap enough. If it doesn't work, I'll try to flip it or something. It SHOULD work, though...just get reported as an "unknown Athlon" or similar to BIOS. I'm sure Windows XP will know the difference and won't really care.

SPBHM wrote:

another benchmark that I used to run around 2003 was Aquamark 3, I think it's DX8 [...]

DirectX 9 is supported.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/aquamark … preview,11.html

FFXIhealer wrote:

If I win this auction (Radeon 9800XT), I think I'll go ahead and pick up the Barton 3000+ chip as well. It's cheap enough. If it doesn't work, I'll try to flip it or something. It SHOULD work, though...just get reported as an "unknown Athlon" or similar to BIOS. I'm sure Windows XP will know the difference and won't really care.

You could also find an unlocked Barton and simply run it the same clockspeed as a 3200+ or even possibly higher.