VOGONS


First post, by red_avatar

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

My Pentium III tower PC died last week but since I have a Pentium II 333Mhz running Windows 98, I had quite a bit of overlap with my Pentium III 1Ghz (also running Windows 98). I already have a Windows XP system but this is a i5-2500k system from 2012 and as such is quite modern.

Now, I'm well aware that most desktops back then were office PCs and these are also quite affordable now. I'd like a more period correct 2005-2006 system running a Pentium 4 or D and specifically a smaller formfactor PC since I'd prefer a desktop instead of a tower. (So yes, NO AMD - office PCs steered clear of AMD anyway). Since I only need AGP or PCIe for a graphics card + two PCI slots for a sound card + a USB 2.0 PCI card (if the motherboard doesn't already support it) my demands aren't big.

As such I wonder: which office desktop PC would be most ideal? I don't want to touch Dell for obvious reasons but I believe Lenovo & HP made some pretty solid office PCs that could be used for gaming. Since I don't intend to get the absolute most out of these systems (they're for late 90's - early 2000's gaming) I don't mind if they underperform a bit but ideally they should be relatively quiet and not use too much power.

So, anyone have good experiences with certain models?

Retro game fanatic.
IBM PS1 386SX25 - 4MB
IBM Aptiva 486SX33 - 8MB - 2GB CF - SB16
IBM PC350 P233MMX - 64MB - 32GB SSD - AWE64 - Voodoo2
PIII600 - 320MB - 480GB SSD - SB Live! - GF4 Ti 4200
i5-2500k - 3GB - SB Audigy 2 - HD 4870

Reply 1 of 10, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Sorry, but... why not dual boot XP on your 1GHz PIII system? Assuming you have enough RAM, that should run quite nicely if you want to run early 2000s games...

I guess I am just struggling with your 2005-6 timeframe. That was the darkest era in Intel's history, a time when Intel fanboys like me almost got AMD X2 3800+s but were only stopped from going to the dark side by the rumour that a magical new processor would be coming from Intel that would make the world right again... (and of course, that processor shipped as Conroe in summer 2006, AMD was knocked out of the running for a decade, and all was well in the world). If you wanted a period-correct enthusiast gaming system from 2005, you want a 3800+ on 939.

If you're willing to go into early 2007, then there are going to be plenty of options in the 65nm C2D/C2Q category. But my understanding is that most businessy desktops remained on HotBurst throughout late 2006, at least the more value-priced ones. Intel had big production constraints on Conroe and one of the ways they dealt with that was continuing to sell cheap hotbursts to large OEMs.

Other observations I would make:
1) This happens to coincide with the time that good GPUs really started requiring additional power, dual slots, etc. Sure, there were still some single-slot cards in 2006 (I think my 7900GT was single-slot, though it needed PCI-E power and was looooong), but the days of video cards that could fit into anything were ending around that time period. And if you're wanting to go with a desktop case, that means a low-profile video card, and... ouch, the options there just get worse and get worse. Also, not sure how many sound cards are low-profile friendly; certainly I've never seen a low-profile Creative Labs card, not to say that there hasn't been one.
2) I don't see a reason to go AGP - a DDR2/SATA/PCI-E system will save you lots of money. People wanting to run 98SE have been driving up the price of all things AGP.
3) I think finding OptiPlexes/ThinkCenters/I-forget-HP's-brand-name from this era in 2024 will be trickier than finding random white box or home-grade systems. Most of these systems would have been bought/leased by corporate buyers who would have replaced them around 2009 or so, then they would have been sold as 'refurbished' back then, who knows how many good ones are still available now. Now, I do think there will be a huge number of late-2000s C2D/C2Q systems still around finally getting tossed due to the Windows 11 requirements, so... that might create some bargains.

I actually had a system of the sort you're thinking about for a little while. It was a ThinkCenter something or other in an SFF desktop case; some kind of Pentium D 9xx. I got it thrown out by an employer without a hard drive for $0, put a random SATA hard drive in it (had to buy the Lenovo mounting hardware first), maybe put some random RAM I had floating around, and then ended up selling it to a Mac-using friend who needed a Windows machine for some work thing. Completely unmemorable hotburst system, I would say.

The final point I would make - you're not buying Voodoo 3s or other legendary vintage components for top dollar here, so... you don't need to do a ton of research and worry about getting it wrong. I would guess your mid-2006 HotBurst business desktop should go for like <$50.

Reply 2 of 10, by RandomStranger

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

No. Netburst era OEM PCs are garbage.

If you really want an OEM, instead of building your own, get something like a HP DC7900. Core2 era and it can handle a decent graphics card that won't be severely underpowered for the XP era.

sreq.png retrogamer-s.png

Reply 3 of 10, by red_avatar

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
VivienM wrote on 2024-02-02, 21:09:

Sorry, but... why not dual boot XP on your 1GHz PIII system? Assuming you have enough RAM, that should run quite nicely if you want to run early 2000s games...

That was my previous system and it ran XP quite poorly not to mention AGP was all over the place in those days.

VivienM wrote on 2024-02-02, 21:09:

If you're willing to go into early 2007, then there are going to be plenty of options in the 65nm C2D/C2Q category. But my understanding is that most businessy desktops remained on HotBurst throughout late 2006, at least the more value-priced ones. Intel had big production constraints on Conroe and one of the ways they dealt with that was continuing to sell cheap hotbursts to large OEMs.

The main reason games are having issues with my more modern Windows XP system is the double cores + too much memory for some. About 80% of all games that wouldn't run well, ran after I disabled the second core. This is why I do not want a multicore system for this PC.

Pentium IV is pretty much the only option I have because I just don't want AMD after all the issues I had at the time with AMD. I'm still bitter about the many thousands of euros I put into three different AMD systems (Athlon Thunderbird, Athlon XP and and Athlon 64) only for them to die after 2-3 years. You could blame the motherboards but these were always high end brands and it highlights another issue AMD had: bad motherboard partners & buggy chipsets. You're right, it wasn't Intel's finest hour since AMD was faster & cheaper but today neither matters and instead reliability becomes an issue and that's why I prefer a Pentium IV system. Since I need Windows XP support, my options are thin because even the fastest Pentium III isn't enough for 2005-2007 games and quite a few games of that era don't run on Windows 7 due to horribly intrusive copy protections (think Starforce).

I could try & build a system from scratch but then I have to give up the desktop formfactor & I already have two tower PCs for my retro corner & don't really have room for a third.

Retro game fanatic.
IBM PS1 386SX25 - 4MB
IBM Aptiva 486SX33 - 8MB - 2GB CF - SB16
IBM PC350 P233MMX - 64MB - 32GB SSD - AWE64 - Voodoo2
PIII600 - 320MB - 480GB SSD - SB Live! - GF4 Ti 4200
i5-2500k - 3GB - SB Audigy 2 - HD 4870

Reply 4 of 10, by red_avatar

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
RandomStranger wrote on 2024-02-02, 21:14:

No. Netburst era OEM PCs are garbage.

If you really want an OEM, instead of building your own, get something like a HP DC7900. Core2 era and it can handle a decent graphics card that won't be severely underpowered for the XP era.

The problem is the dual core CPU there - that's exactly what I want to avoid. If I could disable the second core when booting Windows it could be an option but having to manually do it each time I wanted to run certain games became tedious & some games just crashed & didn't give me the time to disable the core so were never playable (you have to be able to alt-tab out of them to go to task manager to do so).

I've tried the methods at the link below but they just don't work on all games:
https://masolution.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-t … multi-core.html

Retro game fanatic.
IBM PS1 386SX25 - 4MB
IBM Aptiva 486SX33 - 8MB - 2GB CF - SB16
IBM PC350 P233MMX - 64MB - 32GB SSD - AWE64 - Voodoo2
PIII600 - 320MB - 480GB SSD - SB Live! - GF4 Ti 4200
i5-2500k - 3GB - SB Audigy 2 - HD 4870

Reply 6 of 10, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
red_avatar wrote on 2024-02-02, 21:26:
VivienM wrote on 2024-02-02, 21:09:

Sorry, but... why not dual boot XP on your 1GHz PIII system? Assuming you have enough RAM, that should run quite nicely if you want to run early 2000s games...

That was my previous system and it ran XP quite poorly not to mention AGP was all over the place in those days.

How much RAM did you have in that system? I don't have any bad memories of XP on a PIII 700 with 768 megs...

Reply 7 of 10, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
red_avatar wrote on 2024-02-02, 21:29:

The problem is the dual core CPU there - that's exactly what I want to avoid.

Okay, so... two things:
1) I suspect others here may have insightful suggestions about how to make your stuff happy with dual core systems, and
2) If you want a simple single-core solution, why not look for a Celeron 450-type thing? I don't know how common those were, I just found out about them on Wikipedia, but 2.2GHz of Conroe/Allendaleness, even if a little cache-starved, sounds a lot more appealing than a HotBurst...

Reply 8 of 10, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
red_avatar wrote on 2024-02-02, 21:26:

Pentium IV is pretty much the only option I have because I just don't want AMD after all the issues I had at the time with AMD. I'm still bitter about the many thousands of euros I put into three different AMD systems (Athlon Thunderbird, Athlon XP and and Athlon 64) only for them to die after 2-3 years. You could blame the motherboards but these were always high end brands and it highlights another issue AMD had: bad motherboard partners & buggy chipsets. You're right, it wasn't Intel's finest hour since AMD was faster & cheaper but today neither matters and instead reliability becomes an issue and that's why I prefer a Pentium IV system. Since I need Windows XP support, my options are thin because even the fastest Pentium III isn't enough for 2005-2007 games and quite a few games of that era don't run on Windows 7 due to horribly intrusive copy protections (think Starforce).

Two comments on this:
1. I don't think a 2005ish era single-core CPU is going to be great for 2007-era games. A 2005ish CPU is going to be great on 2003ish games... but for 2007-era games, I admit that I'd be looking at a higher-clocked Q9xxx C2Q even, or the higher-clocked dual core E8xxx. Or... really, if you already have a sandy bridge... don't those 2007 games run on your sandy bridge?
2. I think plenty of people would dispute the reliability of P4 systems from this era. This was peak capacitor-plague era, and even once enthusiast-land moved on away from bad capacitors starting in oh 2004 or so, large OEMs (I'm thinking of Dell especially, though this may be part of why you are excluding them) had plenty of bad capacitor-related issues. But I would generally agree that enthusiast AMD boards probably had more capacitor plague issues sooner compared to the rest of the industry...

Reply 9 of 10, by Horun

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Ok got me curious as I have a XP 32bit on a Core2 and have no issues with games from 1999 to about 2008, not one complains or freaks because of multi core.
I know OP mentions 1999-2000 games too Sooo what games are giving issues with multi core ? I can play original C&C Tiberian Sun w/o issue (1999 game).....
Inquiring minds want to know ) Ohh and an e6600 is near double performance in single core perf over P4
"1-Core Avg. Single Core Speed e6600 41.3 Pts Hugely faster single-core speed. +84% P4-3Hgz 22.4 Pts (cpu.userbenchmark.com)
Still want to know what (badly written) 1999 games complain about extra core....

Hate posting a reply and then have to edit it because it made no sense 😁 First computer was an IBM 3270 workstation with CGA monitor. Stuff: https://archive.org/details/@horun

Reply 10 of 10, by RandomStranger

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
red_avatar wrote on 2024-02-02, 21:29:

The problem is the dual core CPU there - that's exactly what I want to avoid. If I could disable the second core when booting Windows it could be an option

Start menu > Run > msconfig > boot (or BOOT.INI) > advanced options

sreq.png retrogamer-s.png