From my experience, Windows 98 and many applications (e.g. 3DMark) see a Core 2 as a Pentium 3.

I never noticed any compatibility issues, but I haven't been using that system long enough to make a definitive statement.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-09-05, 15:30:

From my experience, Windows 98 and many applications (e.g. 3DMark) see a Core 2 as a Pentium 3.

I never noticed any compatibility issues, but I haven't been using that system long enough to make a definitive statement.

Apparently the Core 2 Duo brings more benefits, also because of the possibility of using it dual boot with XP. The impression I have is that Penium 4 is only good for heating the environment.

gundstaff wrote on 2024-09-05, 15:39:

Apparently the Core 2 Duo brings more benefits, also because of the possibility of using it dual boot with XP.

You can dual boot Windows XP with a Pentium 4.

The biggest issue with trying to cover both 9X and XP is GPU compatibility. GPUs that are highly compatible with 9X aren't going to do well past early-era XP games. Conversely, high performing GPUs for XP aren't likely to even have drivers for 9X.

The impression I have is that Penium 4 is only good for heating the environment.

This depends on the specific CPU. The Pentium 4's that have a reputation for running hot are the Prescott series. Pentium D also had that issue.

There are Pentium 4 CPUs with lower power requirements and that run cooler. For example, Northwood and later Cedar Mill processors (especially the D0 steppings) had lower TDW ratings.

Since you have a D0 Cedar Mill, it won't run overly hot compared to Prescott Pentium 4's.

gundstaff wrote on 2024-09-05, 15:39:

Apparently the Core 2 Duo brings more benefits, also because of the possibility of using it dual boot with XP. The impression I have is that Penium 4 is only good for heating the environment.

Your P4 651 is a Cedar Mill with 65 nm lithography so the heat problem has been much alleviated compared with the notorious 90 nm Prescott P4 (nicknamed "Preshot"). Its speed and energy efficiency, however, can't catch up with those of your C2D E4700.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-09-05, 16:46:

The biggest issue with trying to cover both 9X and XP is GPU compatibility. GPUs that are highly compatible with 9X aren't going to do well past early-era XP games. Conversely, high performing GPUs for XP aren't likely to even have drivers for 9X.

Seconded. The issue has been discussed in the neighboring thread:
Best AGP card for P4 2.8Ghz
With LGA775 this Asus P5PE-VM has a wider selection of newer CPU than that ASRock P4i65G (with Socket 478) but has the same AGP 8x for GPU.

Asus P5PE-VM

AsRock 775i65G R2.0/R3.0 is better.

since your board is agp and you're using a radeon 9600 and plan on running 98, id say the pentium 4 is a good choice especially as its a higher 3.40 ghz cpu,
my dos/98/xp pc is also a 775 socket with agpx8, it supports upto a dual core e6700, but i didnt think it was worth it since im not running any 64 bit Os's,
i deceided to go with a single core celeron D 360 (3.46ghz), but since the gpu im using is an fx5200, which i chose over a radeon 9250 for compatibility rather than performance, it doesnt have the power for any high end xp gaming so didnt really warrant pairing with a dual core. also i use another 775 system for 98, with a pcie nvidia 7950gt 512mb, that has a core2duo only because im also running 64bit Os's upto win 11 and it needs a bit more power for later more demanding games.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-09-05, 17:39:

Asus P5PE-VM

AsRock 775i65G R2.0/R3.0 is better.

Certainly, but the "Holy Grail" of C2Q/C2E-compatible AGP board doesn't come by easily or cheaply. 😅

I thought that was ConRoe865PE ?

dormcat wrote on 2024-09-05, 18:13:

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-09-05, 17:39:

Asus P5PE-VM

AsRock 775i65G R2.0/R3.0 is better.

Certainly, but the "Holy Grail" of C2Q/C2E-compatible AGP board doesn't come by easily or cheaply. 😅

the agp board i use (MSI PM8PM-V) supports the Q2E x6800 the last time i checked ebay they were going for £130 which i refuse to pay for an old cpu, seems alot of the boards from this era that support Core2Duos only go up to the e6700/X6800, i did try updating the microcode for a Q9450 but it was a no go, must be a hardware limitation, i did manage to get some later cpus with the 1067cpuid's working but you have the issue with the speedstep bug which makes the cpu run with half the multiplier, there is a fix but it's beyond my knowledge as it involves hacking the bios, i know theres someone on the biosmods site that knows the trick, but i think its a guarded secret. 🤣.

Conroe-L ..... 450 ...... "accidentally" set the bus to 1333 .....

I would think that the motherboard would be more of a hindrance.

Compatibility started to get a little spotty after p3 and by core was basically non existant for win 9x.

Though many have gotten 9x to work on even later systems.

If you want seemless, a p3 or early p4 setup is where it is at.

If you want to break records, you may be able to get it going on something recent… somehow.

But that’s about as far as I can help. Not really my niche making 9x work on newer stuff.

agent_x007 wrote on 2024-09-05, 18:21:

I thought that was ConRoe865PE ?

ConRoe865PE supports bigger RAM (4 x 1GB DDR) than 775i65G R3.0 (2 x 1GB DDR), but only the latter supports 45 nm (Wolfdale, and possibly Yorkfield) CPU.

Hmm, ASRock mentioned no support of 45 nm but TRW lists ConRoe865PE capable of 45 nm. The very last stable BIOS of ConRoe865PE dated 2007/04/27, much earlier than the announcement of Intel's first Wolfdale CPU (January 2008), although there seemed to be beta BIOSes of 1.71 and 1.72 that supported 45 nm CPU.

I didn't know those beta BIOSes until today; in that case the two additional GB of RAM would give ConRoe865PE a much smoother ride under Win7+ than 775i65G R3.0.

Sphere478 wrote on 2024-09-05, 19:34:

I would think that the motherboard would be more of a hindrance.

Compatibility started to get a little spotty after p3 and by core was basically non existant for win 9x.

In my experience, intel's 865 chipset is rock solid under Windows 98.

Don't do it. I've gone through many an LGA 775 build and have multiple board versions including the conroe865. The 440bx platform, although slower beats these in terms of compatability and most importantly stability for win 98. I'd veer away from dual booting and would dedicate a build to an o/s personally, one less thing to go wrong.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-09-05, 20:23:

Sphere478 wrote on 2024-09-05, 19:34:

I would think that the motherboard would be more of a hindrance.

Compatibility started to get a little spotty after p3 and by core was basically non existant for win 9x.

In my experience, intel's 865 chipset is rock solid under Windows 98.

Nice.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-09-05, 15:30:

From my experience, Windows 98 and many applications (e.g. 3DMark) see a Core 2 as a Pentium 3.

In fact, wasn't there one game or two that famously came back to life on C2 hardware after not working on P4 hardware, simply because they had hardcoded some CPUID check and the C2 went back to the PIII's family identifier?

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-09-05, 20:23:

Sphere478 wrote on 2024-09-05, 19:34:

I would think that the motherboard would be more of a hindrance.

Compatibility started to get a little spotty after p3 and by core was basically non existant for win 9x.

In my experience, intel's 865 chipset is rock solid under Windows 98.

And in all fairness, the 865 chipset was supposed to be for Northwood P4s. It just... happens... that the chipset uses the same interface to the processor as the newer LGA775 chips, so some enterprising souls in Taiwan took it upon themselves to i) make i865 boards for LGA775, and ii) update those i865 boards for the voltage stuff required for newer LGA775 processors. Funny how these boards that were sold as a 'here is a cheap way for you to get more processor without needing to replace your PATA HDD, AGP video card and possibly DDR1 RAM' inadvertently turned out to become legends a decade and a half later in the retro community.

And I would echo what you are saying: chipset is what matters. i865 with a C2D (or perhaps even better, the elusive single-core Conroe-based Celerons?) will give someone an easier time for 98SE, much easier time, than i915 with a Preshot.

Even though Win98 doesn't understand cores, Hyper threading, etc just on raw speed alone any P4 or above is plenty of power for WIn9x games.
CPU compatibility isn't an issue, Win98 just ignores what it cant understand, so pick a CPU based on speed, power consumption, price.

Same for the motherboard, even a basic LGA775 motherboard will make for a fast Win98 box, compatibility is what's important. and your Asus P5PE-VM has good compatibility.

As others have said the GPU is the main consideration a Radeon 9600 XT has good compatibility but older (and therefore slower) cards are even better.
but you have to draw the line somewhere and this is a good place to start.

The fact you didn't mention XP means I'm assuming you are building a more cost friendly 9x box over a 9x/XP dual boot system.
Not to say you cant chuck XP on as well, but the GPU no matter which one you choose will really hold you back.

I've recently done some tests of Radeon 9000-series cards with Windows 9x on both the P5PE-VM and a Itox G7S620. Both use the 865 chipset. The P5PE-VM hosts a Core 2 Extreme x6800 (2.93 GHz) and the G7S620 hosts a Pentium D 945 (3.4 GHz). Both platforms work just fine with Windows 98.

I've found that the Core 2 outscores the Pentium D in all compute benchmarks I've run to date. As an example, The Core 2 gets a CPU Mark score of a bit over 1100 in 3DMark 2000, while the Pentium D gets a score of a bit over 600. Now, I don't think the Core 2 is twice as fast in all applications, but it is clearly faster. You won't hold back a high-end AGP GPU with a fast Core 2 processor.