PC Hoarder Patrol wrote on 2026-05-30, 03:03:

DustyShinigami wrote on 2026-05-28, 23:17:

MagefromAntares wrote on 2026-05-28, 22:30:

Hmm, the MSI MS-6533E only supports 400 Mhz and 533 Mhz FSB, while the ASRock P4VM8 also supports 800 Mhz. However the MSI MS-65 […]
Show full quote

Hmm, the MSI MS-6533E only supports 400 Mhz and 533 Mhz FSB, while the ASRock P4VM8 also supports 800 Mhz.
However the MSI MS-6533E is a SIS chipset, while the ASRock P4VM8 is VIA, generally I found SIS chipsets to be a bit more reliable and less driver version hunting than the VIA ones.
Personally I would still choose the ASRock one as the 800 Mhz FSB is the official FSB frequency for a P4 3.2 GHz and for P4s FSB frequency really matters because of their relatively low cache sizes compared to general performance, and generally driver version hunting needs to be only done once and after finding the good driver for a VIA board it can be a good performer.

EDIT: Also note that the MSI MS-6533 without any letters at the end only supports 400 Mhz FSB and that will really cripple the performance of faster P4s, so if going that route make sure it is really a MSI MS-6533E.

Thanks for the info; good to know. I still haven’t really settled on any yet. Just looking up options that will serve my needs, but are also affordable. I would ideally like to get the same as what Phil got in this thread - 10 Reasons for a Pentium 4 Windows 98 DOS Retro Gaming PC :)

Though they’re a bit pricier at £80-100.

I have one of these ( ASRock P4i65G ) kicking its heels in a cupboard somewhere - yours if you want it...PM me.

Really? 😮 That’d be awesome! Thank you. 😃

What would be a suitable PSU for the ASRock P4i65G and a Pentium 4? I still haven't decided on the graphics card yet, but that will also factor into it. I only currently have a generic Hipro HP-K1507A3C, which isn't going to cut it.

DustyShinigami wrote on 2026-06-02, 14:54:

What would be a suitable PSU for the ASRock P4i65G and a Pentium 4? I still haven't decided on the graphics card yet, but that will also factor into it. I only currently have a generic Hipro HP-K1507A3C, which isn't going to cut it.

It is hard to say an exact type if you hadn't decided on the video card yet as it will be either the primary(For high-end cards) or secondary(For Low-Mid-end cards) power consumers in the system, and for high end cards they might need an extra(or two) power connector besides the power from the AGP connector. One rule of thumb I like to follow is to calculate the needed wattage of all the components and put an extra 10-20% percent safety and future expansion margin on it. When decided on the video card a more concrete advice can be given.

Also note that a PSU failure might damage the whole system, so I also stay away from the cheapest brands, you don't need the most expensive ones, but avoid the no-name cheap ones.

MagefromAntares wrote on 2026-06-02, 18:57:

DustyShinigami wrote on 2026-06-02, 14:54:

What would be a suitable PSU for the ASRock P4i65G and a Pentium 4? I still haven't decided on the graphics card yet, but that will also factor into it. I only currently have a generic Hipro HP-K1507A3C, which isn't going to cut it.

It is hard to say an exact type if you hadn't decided on the video card yet as it will be either the primary(For high-end cards) or secondary(For Low-Mid-end cards) power consumers in the system, and for high end cards they might need an extra(or two) power connector besides the power from the AGP connector. One rule of thumb I like to follow is to calculate the needed wattage of all the components and put an extra 10-20% percent safety and future expansion margin on it. When decided on the video card a more concrete advice can be given.

Also note that a PSU failure might damage the whole system, so I also stay away from the cheapest brands, you don't need the most expensive ones, but avoid the no-name cheap ones.

Okay, thanks. I’ll have to take a look at some GPU models that have a good performance to price ratio. I certainly don’t want to be spending hundreds on a vintage card.

But as it’s a micro PSU I need, I see there’s a lot of different brands on eBay, but I can’t say I’ve heard of the majority of them.

Okay, so I'm thinking, probably, either a Geforce FX 5600 or a 5700. Then again, there are a few 6600 GTs.

DustyShinigami wrote on 2026-06-02, 23:31:

Okay, so I'm thinking, probably, either a Geforce FX 5600 or a 5700. Then again, there are a few 6600 GTs.

All three of these are good choices for a Northwood or Prescott P4, do note that the 6600 GT is a generation later card than the FX-es, so it will have a better performance, but it is a power hungry card in comparison of both FX-es, the AGP version usually has a MOLEX connector to supply more power than the AGP slot can provide.

The 6600 GT uses somewhat less than 50watts, but round it up to 50 watts. The fastest non-extreme edition Northwood tops at slightly below 100W, so round it up to 100W, if it is a Prescott for the 478 socket then it goes up to slightly below 110W so round to 110W. Assuming two DDR sticks and power hungry ones the consumption for them 2x5W(Most likely lower but it is good to be prepared for the highest load possibility). The motherboard and chipset doesn't have an exact wattage listed but it is rare to get above 30W, so adding together and putting in the 20% safety margin 240W, 240W is a bit of weird number so a 250 watt or larger capacity PSU should be used (if my calculations are correct).

MagefromAntares wrote on Yesterday, 00:23:

DustyShinigami wrote on 2026-06-02, 23:31:

Okay, so I'm thinking, probably, either a Geforce FX 5600 or a 5700. Then again, there are a few 6600 GTs.

All three of these are good choices for a Northwood or Prescott P4, do note that the 6600 GT is a generation later card than the FX-es, so it will have a better performance, but it is a power hungry card in comparison of both FX-es, the AGP version usually has a MOLEX connector to supply more power than the AGP slot can provide.

The 6600 GT uses somewhat less than 50watts, but round it up to 50 watts. The fastest non-extreme edition Northwood tops at slightly below 100W, so round it up to 100W, if it is a Prescott for the 478 socket then it goes up to slightly below 110W so round to 110W. Assuming two DDR sticks and power hungry ones the consumption for them 2x5W(Most likely lower but it is good to be prepared for the highest load possibility). The motherboard and chipset doesn't have an exact wattage listed but it is rare to get above 30W, so adding together and putting in the 20% safety margin 240W, 240W is a bit of weird number so a 250 watt or larger capacity PSU should be used (if my calculations are correct).

Great. Thanks. 😄 That doesn’t sound too bad. Hopefully I can get something with a bit of extra head room. Do I need to worry about any specific amperage on the 12 or 5V rail?

I have come across this micro ATX PSU:

https://ebay.us/m/Pu3Dq5

…though I’m likely overlooking something that will make it unsuitable. The description does mention it has a 20+4 pin connector and a 4 pin 12v connector.

DustyShinigami wrote on Yesterday, 08:42:

Great. Thanks. 😄 That doesn’t sound too bad. Hopefully I can get something with a bit of extra head room. Do I need to worry abo […]
Show full quote

MagefromAntares wrote on Yesterday, 00:23:

DustyShinigami wrote on 2026-06-02, 23:31:

Okay, so I'm thinking, probably, either a Geforce FX 5600 or a 5700. Then again, there are a few 6600 GTs.

All three of these are good choices for a Northwood or Prescott P4, do note that the 6600 GT is a generation later card than the FX-es, so it will have a better performance, but it is a power hungry card in comparison of both FX-es, the AGP version usually has a MOLEX connector to supply more power than the AGP slot can provide.

The 6600 GT uses somewhat less than 50watts, but round it up to 50 watts. The fastest non-extreme edition Northwood tops at slightly below 100W, so round it up to 100W, if it is a Prescott for the 478 socket then it goes up to slightly below 110W so round to 110W. Assuming two DDR sticks and power hungry ones the consumption for them 2x5W(Most likely lower but it is good to be prepared for the highest load possibility). The motherboard and chipset doesn't have an exact wattage listed but it is rare to get above 30W, so adding together and putting in the 20% safety margin 240W, 240W is a bit of weird number so a 250 watt or larger capacity PSU should be used (if my calculations are correct).

Great. Thanks. 😄 That doesn’t sound too bad. Hopefully I can get something with a bit of extra head room. Do I need to worry about any specific amperage on the 12 or 5V rail?

I have come across this micro ATX PSU:

https://ebay.us/m/Pu3Dq5

…though I’m likely overlooking something that will make it unsuitable. The description does mention it has a 20+4 pin connector and a 4 pin 12v connector.

This seems to be mostly good, 400W will give you a lot of headroom. There are two things to note however:
1. CIT is not a well known brand in Hungary, I don't know if they are more widespread in the UK, but from my perspective I don't have enough familiarity with this manufacturer to recommend it or not based on that.
2. This PSU is one of those new ones that doesn't provide -5 Volts, however it was removed because -5 Volts is mostly unused in anything relatively modern, and by relatively modern I mean anything after the 486DX era, and even with 486DX-es the -5 volts were mostly used in some sound cards and analogue industrial GPIO controllers. P4 systems generally simply ignore it, so most likely it is not a problem.

MagefromAntares wrote on Yesterday, 08:57:

This seems to be mostly good, 400W will give you a lot of headroom. There are two things to note however: 1. CIT is not a well k […]
Show full quote

DustyShinigami wrote on Yesterday, 08:42:

Great. Thanks. 😄 That doesn’t sound too bad. Hopefully I can get something with a bit of extra head room. Do I need to worry abo […]
Show full quote

MagefromAntares wrote on Yesterday, 00:23:

All three of these are good choices for a Northwood or Prescott P4, do note that the 6600 GT is a generation later card than the FX-es, so it will have a better performance, but it is a power hungry card in comparison of both FX-es, the AGP version usually has a MOLEX connector to supply more power than the AGP slot can provide.

The 6600 GT uses somewhat less than 50watts, but round it up to 50 watts. The fastest non-extreme edition Northwood tops at slightly below 100W, so round it up to 100W, if it is a Prescott for the 478 socket then it goes up to slightly below 110W so round to 110W. Assuming two DDR sticks and power hungry ones the consumption for them 2x5W(Most likely lower but it is good to be prepared for the highest load possibility). The motherboard and chipset doesn't have an exact wattage listed but it is rare to get above 30W, so adding together and putting in the 20% safety margin 240W, 240W is a bit of weird number so a 250 watt or larger capacity PSU should be used (if my calculations are correct).

Great. Thanks. 😄 That doesn’t sound too bad. Hopefully I can get something with a bit of extra head room. Do I need to worry about any specific amperage on the 12 or 5V rail?

I have come across this micro ATX PSU:

https://ebay.us/m/Pu3Dq5

…though I’m likely overlooking something that will make it unsuitable. The description does mention it has a 20+4 pin connector and a 4 pin 12v connector.

This seems to be mostly good, 400W will give you a lot of headroom. There are two things to note however:
1. CIT is not a well known brand in Hungary, I don't know if they are more widespread in the UK, but from my perspective I don't have enough familiarity with this manufacturer to recommend it or not based on that.
2. This PSU is one of those new ones that doesn't provide -5 Volts, however it was removed because -5 Volts is mostly unused in anything relatively modern, and by relatively modern I mean anything after the 486DX era, and even with 486DX-es the -5 volts were mostly used in some sound cards and analogue industrial GPIO controllers. P4 systems generally simply ignore it, so most likely it is not a problem.

I see. Yeah, they’re a budget friendly brand in the UK/EU. For high end gaming systems, they’re best avoided.

Yeah, finding a good branded one is going to be very difficult. Worst case, I may have get a mid-tower case so I can use a regular ATX PSU.

Thinking about it, I would actually like to get ahold of a flagship graphics card that was released with Doom 3 in mind. I remember struggling to get D3 working well back then and I remember seeing one of the GPUs with the game on the fan/heatsink. Could never have afforded it back then or got it to work with the setup I had. So it'd be nice to track one down, depending on the price.

DustyShinigami wrote on Today, 13:23:

Thinking about it, I would actually like to get ahold of a flagship graphics card that was released with Doom 3 in mind. I remember struggling to get D3 working well back then and I remember seeing one of the GPUs with the game on the fan/heatsink. Could never have afforded it back then or got it to work with the setup I had. So it'd be nice to track one down, depending on the price.

If the primary goal is to play Doom 3 then first decision is whether you are aiming to get High or Ultra quality running smoothly.

In my opinion the requirement increase between High and Ultra is quite big while the actual visual quality increase is less than the performance needed to achieve it. Also remember that the Ultra quality setting of Doom 3 was intended by ID Software to future proof the game, it wasn't intended for the HW already available on release day.

The 256 MB version of the 6600 GT is capable of running Doom 3 with a stable FPS on High (Personal experience with the PCIe version, but the AGP version should have similar performance once the textures are loaded and the AGP bus no longer have to be saturated), but on Ultra quality it will experience hiccups because of the large memory requirement of uncompressed texture maps.

To run Ultra quality smoothly you wish to use a graphics card with 512 MB of memory to be able to fit the uncompressed textures into VRAM, that means on AGP with NVIDIA you should have at least the AGP version of 7800 as that is the lowest spec card that is capable of running Doom 3 on Ultra without occasional hiccups.

Also as Doom 3 is much more GPU heavy than CPU heavy, so if optimizing the build for that game choose the larger FSB versions of P4 instead of CPU core performance, the increased data transfer rate is more important than the processor performance. I had no trouble playing Doom 3 on Low-Medium quality on P4 Northwood 2.2 Ghz systems because the Game Logic itself is not that demanding, it is the GFX subsystem that is stressed with that game.

EDIT: I have made the mistake of calling AGP a bus instead of a port, my bad, the rest of it stands though.

MagefromAntares wrote on Today, 15:17:

If the primary goal is to play Doom 3 then first decision is whether you are aiming to get High or Ultra quality running smoothl […]
Show full quote

DustyShinigami wrote on Today, 13:23:

Thinking about it, I would actually like to get ahold of a flagship graphics card that was released with Doom 3 in mind. I remember struggling to get D3 working well back then and I remember seeing one of the GPUs with the game on the fan/heatsink. Could never have afforded it back then or got it to work with the setup I had. So it'd be nice to track one down, depending on the price.

If the primary goal is to play Doom 3 then first decision is whether you are aiming to get High or Ultra quality running smoothly.

In my opinion the requirement increase between High and Ultra is quite big while the actual visual quality increase is less than the performance needed to achieve it. Also remember that the Ultra quality setting of Doom 3 was intended by ID Software to future proof the game, it wasn't intended for the HW already available on release day.

The 256 MB version of the 6600 GT is capable of running Doom 3 with a stable FPS on High (Personal experience with the PCIe version, but the AGP version should have similar performance once the textures are loaded and the AGP bus no longer have to be saturated), but on Ultra quality it will experience hiccups because of the large memory requirement of uncompressed texture maps.

To run Ultra quality smoothly you wish to use a graphics card with 512 MB of memory to be able to fit the uncompressed textures into VRAM, that means on AGP with NVIDIA you should have at least the AGP version of 7800 as that is the lowest spec card that is capable of running Doom 3 on Ultra without occasional hiccups.

Also as Doom 3 is much more GPU heavy than CPU heavy, so if optimizing the build for that game choose the larger FSB versions of P4 instead of CPU core performance, the increased data transfer rate is more important than the processor performance. I had no trouble playing Doom 3 on Low-Medium quality on P4 Northwood 2.2 Ghz systems because the Game Logic itself is not that demanding, it is the GFX subsystem that is stressed with that game.

EDIT: I have made the mistake of calling AGP a bus instead of a port, my bad, the rest of it stands though.

Thanks for the info. Yeah, Ultra would be out of the question. There's no noticeable difference in quality between high and ultra, though as you say - the textures are uncompressed. I remember years ago, I was buying one graphics card after another in the hopes of getting smoother frame rates in the game, but was always disappointed with the results. I didn't know half as much about computers as I do now, but I believe the rest of my system, specifically the CPU, was causing major bottleneck. I don't remember what I had, but a Celeron comes to mind...? It certainly was no P4.

Getting great performance in Doom 3 isn't really a priority, to be fair. Though if I can achieve good results in games from 2002-2004, and push for the best available hardware I can use, that would be something. Though late 90s-2002 is the main focus. Particularly in games like Half-Life and Unreal. But the Geforce 6600/GT looks to be a nice sweet spot. The price of the 6800 Ultra is a bit much. More than I'd like to spend on an old graphics card. And I haven't seen any of the custom models with the Doom 3 fan/heatsink on eBay.

I need to focus on and find a suitable fan for the CPU and a replacement PSU first, anyway. The PSU is proving difficult and I may have to go for a mid-tower. I bought the CPU yesterday. I could only find one that's 3.2GHz and is the 800 FSB. Code SL6WG.

DustyShinigami wrote on Today, 15:43:

Thanks for the info. Yeah, Ultra would be out of the question. There's no noticeable difference in quality between high and ultr […]
Show full quote

MagefromAntares wrote on Today, 15:17:

If the primary goal is to play Doom 3 then first decision is whether you are aiming to get High or Ultra quality running smoothl […]
Show full quote

DustyShinigami wrote on Today, 13:23:

Thinking about it, I would actually like to get ahold of a flagship graphics card that was released with Doom 3 in mind. I remember struggling to get D3 working well back then and I remember seeing one of the GPUs with the game on the fan/heatsink. Could never have afforded it back then or got it to work with the setup I had. So it'd be nice to track one down, depending on the price.

If the primary goal is to play Doom 3 then first decision is whether you are aiming to get High or Ultra quality running smoothly.

In my opinion the requirement increase between High and Ultra is quite big while the actual visual quality increase is less than the performance needed to achieve it. Also remember that the Ultra quality setting of Doom 3 was intended by ID Software to future proof the game, it wasn't intended for the HW already available on release day.

The 256 MB version of the 6600 GT is capable of running Doom 3 with a stable FPS on High (Personal experience with the PCIe version, but the AGP version should have similar performance once the textures are loaded and the AGP bus no longer have to be saturated), but on Ultra quality it will experience hiccups because of the large memory requirement of uncompressed texture maps.

To run Ultra quality smoothly you wish to use a graphics card with 512 MB of memory to be able to fit the uncompressed textures into VRAM, that means on AGP with NVIDIA you should have at least the AGP version of 7800 as that is the lowest spec card that is capable of running Doom 3 on Ultra without occasional hiccups.

Also as Doom 3 is much more GPU heavy than CPU heavy, so if optimizing the build for that game choose the larger FSB versions of P4 instead of CPU core performance, the increased data transfer rate is more important than the processor performance. I had no trouble playing Doom 3 on Low-Medium quality on P4 Northwood 2.2 Ghz systems because the Game Logic itself is not that demanding, it is the GFX subsystem that is stressed with that game.

EDIT: I have made the mistake of calling AGP a bus instead of a port, my bad, the rest of it stands though.

Thanks for the info. Yeah, Ultra would be out of the question. There's no noticeable difference in quality between high and ultra, though as you say - the textures are uncompressed. I remember years ago, I was buying one graphics card after another in the hopes of getting smoother frame rates in the game, but was always disappointed with the results. I didn't know half as much about computers as I do now, but I believe the rest of my system, specifically the CPU, was causing major bottleneck. I don't remember what I had, but a Celeron comes to mind...? It certainly was no P4.

Getting great performance in Doom 3 isn't really a priority, to be fair. Though if I can achieve good results in games from 2002-2004, and push for the best available hardware I can use, that would be something. Though late 90s-2002 is the main focus. Particularly in games like Half-Life and Unreal. But the Geforce 6600/GT looks to be a nice sweet spot. The price of the 6800 Ultra is a bit much. More than I'd like to spend on an old graphics card. And I haven't seen any of the custom models with the Doom 3 fan/heatsink on eBay.

I need to focus on and find a suitable fan for the CPU and a replacement PSU first, anyway. The PSU is proving difficult and I may have to go for a mid-tower. I bought the CPU yesterday. I could only find one that's 3.2GHz and is the 800 FSB. Code SL6WG.

The SL6WG is a quite nice one, Northwood core so it doesn't get that hot like a Prescott and supports Hyper-threading, so multithreaded performance will be quite OK(Not as good as true Dual-Core or Multiprocessor but still quite acceptable) unlike the P4s that is missing Hyper-threading and suffers with more than one thread and process loads because of that.

MagefromAntares wrote on Today, 15:57:

DustyShinigami wrote on Today, 15:43:

Thanks for the info. Yeah, Ultra would be out of the question. There's no noticeable difference in quality between high and ultr […]
Show full quote

MagefromAntares wrote on Today, 15:17:

If the primary goal is to play Doom 3 then first decision is whether you are aiming to get High or Ultra quality running smoothl […]
Show full quote

If the primary goal is to play Doom 3 then first decision is whether you are aiming to get High or Ultra quality running smoothly.

In my opinion the requirement increase between High and Ultra is quite big while the actual visual quality increase is less than the performance needed to achieve it. Also remember that the Ultra quality setting of Doom 3 was intended by ID Software to future proof the game, it wasn't intended for the HW already available on release day.

The 256 MB version of the 6600 GT is capable of running Doom 3 with a stable FPS on High (Personal experience with the PCIe version, but the AGP version should have similar performance once the textures are loaded and the AGP bus no longer have to be saturated), but on Ultra quality it will experience hiccups because of the large memory requirement of uncompressed texture maps.

To run Ultra quality smoothly you wish to use a graphics card with 512 MB of memory to be able to fit the uncompressed textures into VRAM, that means on AGP with NVIDIA you should have at least the AGP version of 7800 as that is the lowest spec card that is capable of running Doom 3 on Ultra without occasional hiccups.

Also as Doom 3 is much more GPU heavy than CPU heavy, so if optimizing the build for that game choose the larger FSB versions of P4 instead of CPU core performance, the increased data transfer rate is more important than the processor performance. I had no trouble playing Doom 3 on Low-Medium quality on P4 Northwood 2.2 Ghz systems because the Game Logic itself is not that demanding, it is the GFX subsystem that is stressed with that game.

EDIT: I have made the mistake of calling AGP a bus instead of a port, my bad, the rest of it stands though.

Thanks for the info. Yeah, Ultra would be out of the question. There's no noticeable difference in quality between high and ultra, though as you say - the textures are uncompressed. I remember years ago, I was buying one graphics card after another in the hopes of getting smoother frame rates in the game, but was always disappointed with the results. I didn't know half as much about computers as I do now, but I believe the rest of my system, specifically the CPU, was causing major bottleneck. I don't remember what I had, but a Celeron comes to mind...? It certainly was no P4.

Getting great performance in Doom 3 isn't really a priority, to be fair. Though if I can achieve good results in games from 2002-2004, and push for the best available hardware I can use, that would be something. Though late 90s-2002 is the main focus. Particularly in games like Half-Life and Unreal. But the Geforce 6600/GT looks to be a nice sweet spot. The price of the 6800 Ultra is a bit much. More than I'd like to spend on an old graphics card. And I haven't seen any of the custom models with the Doom 3 fan/heatsink on eBay.

I need to focus on and find a suitable fan for the CPU and a replacement PSU first, anyway. The PSU is proving difficult and I may have to go for a mid-tower. I bought the CPU yesterday. I could only find one that's 3.2GHz and is the 800 FSB. Code SL6WG.

The SL6WG is a quite nice one, Northwood core so it doesn't get that hot like a Prescott and supports Hyper-threading, so multithreaded performance will be quite OK(Not as good as true Dual-Core or Multiprocessor but still quite acceptable) unlike the P4s that is missing Hyper-threading and suffers with more than one thread and process loads because of that.

Cool. Is there any way, apart from powering the system on of course, to find out what options a motherboard's BIOS gives? Specifically if it's capable of downclocking? I now have the Asrock P4I65G.

DustyShinigami wrote on Today, 16:07:

MagefromAntares wrote on Today, 15:57:

DustyShinigami wrote on Today, 15:43:

Thanks for the info. Yeah, Ultra would be out of the question. There's no noticeable difference in quality between high and ultra, though as you say - the textures are uncompressed. I remember years ago, I was buying one graphics card after another in the hopes of getting smoother frame rates in the game, but was always disappointed with the results. I didn't know half as much about computers as I do now, but I believe the rest of my system, specifically the CPU, was causing major bottleneck. I don't remember what I had, but a Celeron comes to mind...? It certainly was no P4.

Getting great performance in Doom 3 isn't really a priority, to be fair. Though if I can achieve good results in games from 2002-2004, and push for the best available hardware I can use, that would be something. Though late 90s-2002 is the main focus. Particularly in games like Half-Life and Unreal. But the Geforce 6600/GT looks to be a nice sweet spot. The price of the 6800 Ultra is a bit much. More than I'd like to spend on an old graphics card. And I haven't seen any of the custom models with the Doom 3 fan/heatsink on eBay.

I need to focus on and find a suitable fan for the CPU and a replacement PSU first, anyway. The PSU is proving difficult and I may have to go for a mid-tower. I bought the CPU yesterday. I could only find one that's 3.2GHz and is the 800 FSB. Code SL6WG.

The SL6WG is a quite nice one, Northwood core so it doesn't get that hot like a Prescott and supports Hyper-threading, so multithreaded performance will be quite OK(Not as good as true Dual-Core or Multiprocessor but still quite acceptable) unlike the P4s that is missing Hyper-threading and suffers with more than one thread and process loads because of that.

Cool. Is there any way, apart from powering the system on of course, to find out what options a motherboard's BIOS gives? Specifically if it's capable of downclocking? I now have the Asrock P4I65G.

While they don't give a full official options list the manufacturers homepage have some information about it: https://www.asrock.com/mb/intel/p4i65g/
For example: "Untied Overclocking : During Overclocking, FSB enjoys better margin due to fixed AGP/ PCI Buses", means that the FSB can be overclocked without affecting the AGP and PCI buses, so this most likely means that underclocking is possible also without too much affect on stability as the AGP and PCI buses have some amount of separation from the FSB.
The Retro Web also has information and a user manual:https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/asrock-p4i65g
So this motherboard seem to be quite well documented.

MagefromAntares wrote on 55 minutes ago:

While they don't give a full official options list the manufacturers homepage have some information about it: https://www.asrock […]
Show full quote

DustyShinigami wrote on Today, 16:07:

MagefromAntares wrote on Today, 15:57:

The SL6WG is a quite nice one, Northwood core so it doesn't get that hot like a Prescott and supports Hyper-threading, so multithreaded performance will be quite OK(Not as good as true Dual-Core or Multiprocessor but still quite acceptable) unlike the P4s that is missing Hyper-threading and suffers with more than one thread and process loads because of that.

Cool. Is there any way, apart from powering the system on of course, to find out what options a motherboard's BIOS gives? Specifically if it's capable of downclocking? I now have the Asrock P4I65G.

While they don't give a full official options list the manufacturers homepage have some information about it: https://www.asrock.com/mb/intel/p4i65g/
For example: "Untied Overclocking : During Overclocking, FSB enjoys better margin due to fixed AGP/ PCI Buses", means that the FSB can be overclocked without affecting the AGP and PCI buses, so this most likely means that underclocking is possible also without too much affect on stability as the AGP and PCI buses have some amount of separation from the FSB.
The Retro Web also has information and a user manual:https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/asrock-p4i65g
So this motherboard seem to be quite well documented.

Hmm, okay. Thanks. I didn't think of checking the manual as I figured it would only cover how to install a CPU and possibly a bit of overclocking, but not underclocking. I also have a physical manual in my possession, so I'll give that a quick check and see what it says.

EDIT: Yeah, only info I can find is that it's a 4Mb AMI and I believe it's been flashed to the latest - 1.40. This thread says the P4i65GV's FSB can go as low as 66 MHz - AsRock P4i65G & P4i65GV Thread