I don't care about the correct period of the graphics card with Pentium3.

I don't know if it makes sense to choose a more powerful graphics card since the processor may limit the card.

And is there a difference in the quality of maxpayne 2001 on a Pentium3 PC, 512MB RAM and a GF2mx and GF4ti graphics card?

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-16, 00:29:

I don't know if it makes sense to choose a more powerful graphics card since the processor may limit the card.

And is there a difference in the quality of maxpayne 2001 on a Pentium3 PC, 512MB RAM and a GF2mx and GF4ti graphics card?

The other factor, then, is price/supply. GF4 Tis, at least in eBayland, tend to be very expensive. (And let's not talk about the Mac Ti4600, that one is a whole another level of expensive) Are you willing to spend the extra premium, and if yes, for what benefit?

Isn't the GF4 MX the card many consider to be a great value option for this era? Because it is similar to a GF2 GTS?

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-16, 00:29:

I don't care about the correct period of the graphics card with Pentium3.

I don't know if it makes sense to choose a more powerful graphics card since the processor may limit the card.

And is there a difference in the quality of maxpayne 2001 on a Pentium3 PC, 512MB RAM and a GF2mx and GF4ti graphics card?

Just remember that GF2 MX card doesn't have shaders and any game that requires them will likely not run at all.

Its an ok card for a budget system that you have no intention of playing games that need shaders so you'll need to pick your games around that card if you go with it. Personally I tend to just grab a card that supports them, even if its a GF3 Ti200 or GF4 Ti4200 both of which are not horribly expensive.

The GF2 GTS is a quite capable card and would be a far better pick than the MX card for a budget system.

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-16, 00:55:

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-16, 00:29:

I don't know if it makes sense to choose a more powerful graphics card since the processor may limit the card.

And is there a difference in the quality of maxpayne 2001 on a Pentium3 PC, 512MB RAM and a GF2mx and GF4ti graphics card?

The other factor, then, is price/supply. GF4 Tis, at least in eBayland, tend to be very expensive. (And let's not talk about the Mac Ti4600, that one is a whole another level of expensive) Are you willing to spend the extra premium, and if yes, for what benefit?

Isn't the GF4 MX the card many consider to be a great value option for this era? Because it is similar to a GF2 GTS?

The GF4 MX440 is just an upgraded GF2 MX400 .. neither of which supports even basic shaders.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-16, 00:29:

I don't care about the correct period of the graphics card with Pentium3.

I don't know if it makes sense to choose a more powerful graphics card since the processor may limit the card.

I'm not a fan of period correctness either, but I usually make suggestions in this pattern:

"The performance of your [hardware A] would be somewhat limited when paired with [hardware B]; if you could pair it with [hardware C] instead then not only [hardware A] would reach its full potential but the overall performance of [A+C] would be much better than [A+B], not to mention that [hardware C] is roughly on par with or even cheaper than [hardware B] in pricing and availability."

In this specific case, "A" is a high-end Universal AGP graphics card like Radeon 9800 Pro or GeForce FX 5800 Ultra, "B" is a Coppermine P3 and a corresponding motherboard, while "C" is a more advanced system like P4 or Athlon XP.

Since you've already stated that "dream of going into the properties of 'my computer' and seeing the words 'Pentium 3'", I'd say the emotional need outweighs quantitative indicators like benchmark scores or frames per second. On the other hand, however, you seem to be very concerned on the performance of those games you're about to play on this potential build. IMO you have every right to stick with "B" for its emotional values but you have to accept some compromises as well.

All this knowledge and yet many posts discussing how much RAM BX supports...
It officially supports 1 GB (4x 256 MB, low density = 8 chips per side) RAM, PERIOD!

Early boards were mostly 3 DIMM slots which limits maximum amount to 768 MB, later better boards had 4 slots and also many had adjustable Vio to help support full 1 GB at 133 MHz and up.

Paadam wrote on 2024-09-16, 19:58:

All this knowledge and yet many posts discussing how much RAM BX supports...
It officially supports 1 GB (4x 256 MB, low density = 8 chips per side) RAM, PERIOD!

Speaking of "official", you are welcome to bring forth a more official document than this one: 😉

For the record: the issue of RDIMM has been addressed earlier.

Paadam wrote on 2024-09-16, 19:58:

Early boards were mostly 3 DIMM slots which limits maximum amount to 768 MB, later better boards had 4 slots and also many had adjustable Vio to help support full 1 GB at 133 MHz and up.

It's a common knowledge among 3rd party motherboard makers and DIYers that 440BX can be overclocked to 133 MHz comfortably as long as you've got a decent motherboard. OTOH Intel has never officially recognize 440BX at 133 MHz. How could Intel sell more 810/815 or any successor chipset if it recognized 440BX could run at 133 MHz? It was not a technical limitation but a business move.

dormcat wrote on 2024-09-16, 21:09:

It's a common knowledge among 3rd party motherboard makers and DIYers that 440BX can be overclocked to 133 MHz comfortably as long as you've got a decent motherboard. OTOH Intel has never officially recognize 440BX at 133 MHz. How could Intel sell more 810/815 or any successor chipset if it recognized 440BX could run at 133 MHz? It was not a technical limitation but a business move.

So as long as you have a "decent" motherboard, it might or might not support 133MHz?

Who is it that decides if it is a "decent" motherboard? Or is that decision made by the fact it can run at 133MHz?

The meer fact that some might and some might not be able to run at 133Mhz is a pretty good business case to not sell it as 133 capable really.
Especially in places like America. I mean can you imagine going into your local computer store to buy a board to be told it might run your processor. that all depends on ...

You have a lot to learn about how you can operate as a business if you think it was a business move and only done to boost 810/815 sales!

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-09-16, 21:52:

Who is it that decides if it is a "decent" motherboard? Or is that decision made by the fact it can run at 133MHz?

Many non-Intel MB makers advertised their boards being OC-tolerant or even OC-friendly. They would still add "use the OC functionality at your own risk" disclaimers in user's manuals to avoid possible disputes or lawsuits.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-09-16, 21:52:

You have a lot to learn about how you can operate as a business if you think it was a business move and only done to boost 810/815 sales!

Right. Tell Intel about it. Just look what they have done to their 13th/14th Gen. CPUs.

dormcat wrote on 2024-09-16, 22:15:

Many non-Intel MB makers advertised their boards being OC-tolerant or even OC-friendly. They would still add "use the OC functio […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-09-16, 21:52:

Who is it that decides if it is a "decent" motherboard? Or is that decision made by the fact it can run at 133MHz?

Many non-Intel MB makers advertised their boards being OC-tolerant or even OC-friendly. They would still add "use the OC functionality at your own risk" disclaimers in user's manuals to avoid possible disputes or lawsuits.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-09-16, 21:52:

You have a lot to learn about how you can operate as a business if you think it was a business move and only done to boost 810/815 sales!

Right. Tell Intel about it. Just look what they have done to their 13th/14th Gen. CPUs.

What is the disclaimer that always goes with the sale of those boards?

Is it something along the lines that any over clocking is done at the owners risk?
I think so.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-09-16, 21:52:

So as long as you have a "decent" motherboard, it might or might not support 133MHz? […]
Show full quote

dormcat wrote on 2024-09-16, 21:09:

It's a common knowledge among 3rd party motherboard makers and DIYers that 440BX can be overclocked to 133 MHz comfortably as long as you've got a decent motherboard. OTOH Intel has never officially recognize 440BX at 133 MHz. How could Intel sell more 810/815 or any successor chipset if it recognized 440BX could run at 133 MHz? It was not a technical limitation but a business move.

So as long as you have a "decent" motherboard, it might or might not support 133MHz?

Who is it that decides if it is a "decent" motherboard? Or is that decision made by the fact it can run at 133MHz?

The meer fact that some might and some might not be able to run at 133Mhz is a pretty good business case to not sell it as 133 capable really.
Especially in places like America. I mean can you imagine going into your local computer store to buy a board to be told it might run your processor. that all depends on ...

You have a lot to learn about how you can operate as a business if you think it was a business move and only done to boost 810/815 sales!

Not to mention - this is right around the time where Intel had to cancel their MTH for SDRAM on i820. This is around the time where AnandTech and Tom's hardware forced the withdrawal of the 1.13GHz Coppermine.

It's not that far removed from the great big Pentium FDIV bug either.

Also, why would Intel want to sell the i810 over the 440BX?

The explanation about all of this is obvious - this is the beginning of Intel's RDRAM infatuation leading it to disaster. The plan was for i820 (and i840) on RDRAM to be the flagship platform for Coppermine, but oops, RDRAM too expensive. Try to hack a translation chip together in the short term; oops, this is unreliable. So they scramble to put out the i815 so they can have 4X AGP, UltraATA 66, etc on SDRAM. Then the RDRAM thing would go on to burn the P4 on i850. It's actually funny how the RDRAM debacle has gotten forgotten... although it's worth noting, I don't think anyone talks about P4s prior to i865 anymore.

When you say obsession how did that manifest itself in the real world?

I mean Intel being the ones in charge of their own production schedule did they decide to stop the production of say the 810/815 chipsets to make the 840 chipsets and then go on to force those 840 chipsets onto the world?
Or did they pay off the big OEMs like HP and Dell to sell their 840 chipset systems by offering them cheaper than they should have been? to make their sale more attractive to the OEM?
Maybe starve the market of the 810/815 to force 840 sales?

Or did they just run an aggressive marketing campaign in the hope that people will take up the product they were making?

Intel 815 chipset, processor Pentium3 Coppermine 800-1000mhz, ram memory do you recommend any specific model or manufacturer?

The graphics card does not have to be from the P3 period. It is important for me that it has good compatibility with drivers and that it is better than GF2mx.

And what motherboard should I put everything on? I don't want a computer case.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-17, 15:12:

do you recommend any specific model or manufacturer?

"Houston, we've had a problem."

I have an IDE to SATA converter, like this
It works fine with Aopen MX3S, and does not work on Asus TUSL-2C.
Guess which board will be called "legendary" and recommended first.
And which one I like better, due to the complete absence of problems.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-17, 15:12:

Intel 815 chipset, processor Pentium3 Coppermine 800-1000mhz, ram memory do you recommend any specific model or manufacturer?

The graphics card does not have to be from the P3 period. It is important for me that it has good compatibility with drivers and that it is better than GF2mx.

And what motherboard should I put everything on? I don't want a computer case.

There seems to be a good list of the 815 chipset boards on the retro web site
https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/?chipsetId=298

Its not a complete list as I know of at least one board that is missing from the list, but it was rare at the time so no surprise its not there.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-17, 15:12:

The graphics card does not have to be from the P3 period. It is important for me that it has good compatibility with drivers and that it is better than GF2mx.

I've already recommended a GeForce FX 5800 Ultra or a Radeon 9800 Pro, the two fastest cards with Universal AGP keys (thus minimizing possible incompatibilities with motherboards) from Nvidia and ATI, respectively. If you think those two were too rare and expensive I'd suggest you just find the best card within your budget.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-17, 15:12:

And what motherboard should I put everything on? I don't want a computer case.

Eh, what? Don't want a case? Do you want an open-air rack instead?

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-09-17, 16:07:

There seems to be a good list of the 815 chipset boards on the retro web site
https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/?chipsetId=298

Its not a complete list as I know of at least one board that is missing from the list, but it was rare at the time so no surprise its not there.

TRW's search engine cannot designate "any Intel 815 series chipset" so one must manually switch between different sub-models, such as 815E and 815EP. With updated southbridge ICH2 (82801BA), the 815E/EP chipsets offered two additional USB 1.1 ports, eliminating the need to disconnect a modern keyboard or mouse when inserting a USB flash drive (PS/2 keyboards and mice were still the mainstream back then; personally I still prefer using PS/2 keyboards on all my retro builds).

dormcat wrote on 2024-09-17, 18:57:

TRW's search engine cannot designate "any Intel 815 series chipset" so one must manually switch between different sub-models, such as 815E and 815EP. With updated southbridge ICH2 (82801BA), the 815E/EP chipsets offered two additional USB 1.1 ports, eliminating the need to disconnect a modern keyboard or mouse when inserting a USB flash drive (PS/2 keyboards and mice were still the mainstream back then; personally I still prefer using PS/2 keyboards on all my retro builds).

Oh right, I didnt know that.
I dont use the site all that much.
The 6A815EPD is there under the 815EP.

That was an interesting, if cheap, 815 board back in the day.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-09-17, 11:28:

When you say obsession how did that manifest itself in the real world? […]
Show full quote

When you say obsession how did that manifest itself in the real world?

I mean Intel being the ones in charge of their own production schedule did they decide to stop the production of say the 810/815 chipsets to make the 840 chipsets and then go on to force those 840 chipsets onto the world?
Or did they pay off the big OEMs like HP and Dell to sell their 840 chipset systems by offering them cheaper than they should have been? to make their sale more attractive to the OEM?
Maybe starve the market of the 810/815 to force 840 sales?

Or did they just run an aggressive marketing campaign in the hope that people will take up the product they were making?

They basically starved the market of non-RDRAM chipsets.

And they did so in two phases:
1) Phase 1. i820. Basically, if you wanted 133MHz FSB, 4X AGP, UltraATA 66, or any of the other platform improvements, and you wanted an AGP slot, then you needed an i820 with RDRAM.
When the market resisted and 440BX stuck around much longer than expected, they decided to come up with their MTH to 'translate' SDRAM into RDRAM. Then that... turned out to be a snafu and got recalled. So they gave away 128 megs of RDRAM to everybody who had the Intel CC820 board.
Then they were forced to launch the i815, which got you all the nice platform improvements over the 440BX but with SDRAM support. That was the end of RDRAM on the PIII platform - maybe a few high-end Dells got sold with i820/i840 but that's about it.
(As an aside, as someone who would never have touched a VIA chipset back in the day and who is still shopping for an additional retro system, I am continually astounded at how many socket 370 boards/big OEM systems are out there with Via's Apollo 133 chipsets. That's the legacy of Intel not offering a decent non-RDRAM chipset before the i815.)

2) Phase 2. Pentium 4. The Pentium 4 launched with i850 and RDRAM only. I think the MTH was supposed to come back, but didn't. So, again, if you wanted Intel's flagship processor, you needed RDRAM.
After close to a year, they launched the first iteration of the i845, but that only supported PC133 SDRAM, not DDR, and performance was mediocre. I'm googling this and reading old AnandTech articles, apparently it was crazier than I remembered - the i845 could do DDR, but Intel strictly, strictly prohibited motherboard manufacturers from making DDR boards until at least Jan. 1, 2002. And I haven't researched it and I don't remember offhand, but I'm pretty sure the DDR i845 boards remained unappealing alternatives to i850E and it was only with i865/i875 that DDR platforms for P4 really became good.

So basically, for the first 15ish months at least, if you wanted a P4, you had to get RDRAM.

How that manifested itself in the real world? If you weren't VIA-phobic, in late 2001, you were getting a KT266 motherboard with your Athlon XP on socket 462.

Intel had a chipset problem from late 1999 until the launch of the i865 in 2003. There was a gap of about a year where the i815 provided a decent alternative, at least if you could live with the max 512 megs of RAM at a time when 256 megs of SDRAM started costing $60CAD. But otherwise, Intel's chipset options were always flawed because the decent/high-end option was only RDRAM.

(Disclaimer: I had a Willamette P4 with a gig of RDRAM. Never had a real problem with it, although what annoyed me was that the Northwoods that came out a month later used PC1066 RDRAM and mine was PC800... so oops, zero upgrade path for me.)

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-18, 00:42:

They basically starved the market of non-RDRAM chipsets. […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-09-17, 11:28:

When you say obsession how did that manifest itself in the real world? […]
Show full quote

When you say obsession how did that manifest itself in the real world?

I mean Intel being the ones in charge of their own production schedule did they decide to stop the production of say the 810/815 chipsets to make the 840 chipsets and then go on to force those 840 chipsets onto the world?
Or did they pay off the big OEMs like HP and Dell to sell their 840 chipset systems by offering them cheaper than they should have been? to make their sale more attractive to the OEM?
Maybe starve the market of the 810/815 to force 840 sales?

Or did they just run an aggressive marketing campaign in the hope that people will take up the product they were making?

They basically starved the market of non-RDRAM chipsets.

And they did so in two phases:
1) Phase 1. i820. Basically, if you wanted 133MHz FSB, 4X AGP, UltraATA 66, or any of the other platform improvements, and you wanted an AGP slot, then you needed an i820 with RDRAM.
When the market resisted and 440BX stuck around much longer than expected, they decided to come up with their MTH to 'translate' SDRAM into RDRAM. Then that... turned out to be a snafu and got recalled. So they gave away 128 megs of RDRAM to everybody who had the Intel CC820 board.
Then they were forced to launch the i815, which got you all the nice platform improvements over the 440BX but with SDRAM support. That was the end of RDRAM on the PIII platform - maybe a few high-end Dells got sold with i820/i840 but that's about it.
(As an aside, as someone who would never have touched a VIA chipset back in the day and who is still shopping for an additional retro system, I am continually astounded at how many socket 370 boards/big OEM systems are out there with Via's Apollo 133 chipsets. That's the legacy of Intel not offering a decent non-RDRAM chipset before the i815.)

2) Phase 2. Pentium 4. The Pentium 4 launched with i850 and RDRAM only. I think the MTH was supposed to come back, but didn't. So, again, if you wanted Intel's flagship processor, you needed RDRAM.
After close to a year, they launched the first iteration of the i845, but that only supported PC133 SDRAM, not DDR, and performance was mediocre. I'm googling this and reading old AnandTech articles, apparently it was crazier than I remembered - the i845 could do DDR, but Intel strictly, strictly prohibited motherboard manufacturers from making DDR boards until at least Jan. 1, 2002. And I haven't researched it and I don't remember offhand, but I'm pretty sure the DDR i845 boards remained unappealing alternatives to i850E and it was only with i865/i875 that DDR platforms for P4 really became good.

So basically, for the first 15ish months at least, if you wanted a P4, you had to get RDRAM.

How that manifested itself in the real world? If you weren't VIA-phobic, in late 2001, you were getting a KT266 motherboard with your Athlon XP on socket 462.

Intel had a chipset problem from late 1999 until the launch of the i865 in 2003. There was a gap of about a year where the i815 provided a decent alternative, at least if you could live with the max 512 megs of RAM at a time when 256 megs of SDRAM started costing $60CAD. But otherwise, Intel's chipset options were always flawed because the decent/high-end option was only RDRAM.

(Disclaimer: I had a Willamette P4 with a gig of RDRAM. Never had a real problem with it, although what annoyed me was that the Northwoods that came out a month later used PC1066 RDRAM and mine was PC800... so oops, zero upgrade path for me.)

Ok fine.
I dont see that in the real world going by the artefacts that are left to see but ok we can roll with that as an idea.

I think I would like to seperate the Pentium 3 and the Pentium 4 here, certainly I would agree that intel pushed RAMBUS on us with socket 423 as when you look for an find a socket 423 board all you ever seem too get is RAMBUS, but with the Pentium 3 chipsets there are so many boards out there that use SDRAM (440/810/815 chipsets) then it is hard to see how a company that controlled the supply starved the market because there are so many out there.

I remember the realease of RAMBUS during the Pentium 3 life time, I remember the articles in magazines talking about it and how it was so much more expensive than SDRAM and while it filled a high end neich the majority of computers are not high end (something Intel was all to aware of) and most magazines pushed SDRAM systems.
If for what you are saying was true then you would be assuming that Intel wanted to ignore the majority of its sales and squeeze more money out of buyers, by selling them RAMBUS boards over SDRAM boards, and they did that by deliberately not producing enough SDRAM boards to satisfy demand.
And like I said ok I can work with that as an idea.
But the physical items we are left with is a lot more Pentium 3 boards that use SDRAM than RAMBUS. And if what you are saying was true then that would be the other way around, because in your idea intel starved the market of 810/185 chipsets.

The actions dont fit the words. And the actions are unchangable. So it is the words (your ideas about what they did) that must be wrong as stated.

Because if you were right in the case of the Pentium 3 then you would have a similar situation as you have with socket 423 boards.

SDRAM on Pentium 4 was more of an afterthought really. Intel had Tualerons to sell as low-budget offering at that time.