VOGONS


Windows XP Help me pick a CPU

Topic actions

First post, by Lo-ResBros

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I know Windows XP is not really a neccesary build since anything that can be played on XP can most likely be played on any current computer, but I don’t really have a current PC gaming setup or play any new games. I have some nostalgia playing games on Windows XP, games like Max Payne and GTA Vice City.

So for the hell of it, I figured I’d build a XP setup. I have 2 cpus laying around and not sure which would be better.

P4 521 HT Technology 2.8GHz. 1MB cache, 800MHz FSB
or
Pentium D 930 3.0GHz, 4MB cache, 800MHz FSB

I’m leaning towards actually using the P4 since it has hyper threading and it seems like generally people don’t like the pentium D very much, but I’m not sure if the hate for the pentium D is just compared to Intel’s Core 2 duo or not.

which would you guys pick?

AMD K6-2+/550MHz
Soltek SL-54U5 Super Socket 7
64MB SDRAM
3DFX Voodoo 3 3000 16MB
Sound Blaster AWE64
Roland SC-55mkII

Pentium MMX 233MHz
Tyan TitanVX S1470 Socket 7
128MB SDRAM
ATi Rage 128 pro 32MB
Audio Plus 320 v.1
Roland SC-88

Reply 1 of 43, by BinaryDemon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

IMO, I’d pick the Pentium D because hyperthreading always seemed pointless on the P4. Intel’s first implementation never impressed me, some tasks would even run slower due to hyperthreading. Even if you not using any software that can take advantage of dual core at least XP can use the spare core for OS tasks.

Check out DOSBox Distro:

https://sites.google.com/site/dosboxdistro/ [*]

a lightweight Linux distro (tinycore) which boots off a usb flash drive and goes straight to DOSBox.

Make your dos retrogaming experience portable!

Reply 2 of 43, by canthearu

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

After comparing prescott and cedar west P4 cpus for heat generation and performance, I'd go with the newer 65nm CPUs every day of the week.

So I'd use the Pentium D.

Although, you can also use a dual or quad core core 2 system with windows XP very easily, and achieve much greater performance, along with much faster PCI-e graphics cards.

Reply 3 of 43, by Lo-ResBros

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

ahhhh I see. Thanks for the info guys. I’ll go with the Pentium D!

AMD K6-2+/550MHz
Soltek SL-54U5 Super Socket 7
64MB SDRAM
3DFX Voodoo 3 3000 16MB
Sound Blaster AWE64
Roland SC-55mkII

Pentium MMX 233MHz
Tyan TitanVX S1470 Socket 7
128MB SDRAM
ATi Rage 128 pro 32MB
Audio Plus 320 v.1
Roland SC-88

Reply 4 of 43, by red_avatar

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

The CPU doesn't really matter all that much. The faster, the better so I'd just look at best bang/buck and you can get some decent systems for practically free on eBay. Just disable extra cores if a game needs it and you can even use a modern motherboard as long as Windows XP supports it. I have a 2500K which runs XP beautifully. I thought I'd run into all sorts of compatibility issues but nothing of the sort. The main problem I found, is mouse related because new mice have far higher polling speeds and some games can't handle that. I need to find a new old stock Logitech mouse for that.

Graphics card is by far the most important if you want to game. My XP system has a Radeon HD 4850 and surprisingly, I get very little compatibility issues. I'd go for Nvidia though if I had an older card of that era like the GTX 750 ti.

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 5 of 43, by deleted_nk

User metadata

The Pentium D does well when used in similar scenarios to a P4, since the extra core and thread helps a fair bit in most XP era applications. However compared to the Core2 series, they weren't exactly stellar performers, even the lowest end Core2 runs circles around a Pentium D in my experience with them.

Don't get me wrong, the Pentium D is still good fun to mess around with though, and if you've got good enough cooling you can try your hand at overclocking it if you've got a good enough board. Be warned that they do pump out a fair bit of heat, so don't try overclocking one on a stock cooler 🤣

Reply 7 of 43, by realnc

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

AMD Athlon 64 was also really good for that era. However, if you're looking for something more modern and aren't trying to build something era-specific, you might want to go with Core 2 Quad (4 cores) or Duo (2 cores.) They should be super cheap to find.

Out of the two you already have, I'd use the Pentium D for sure. It was faster in games. 3GHz and 4MB cache wins over 2.8Ghz and 1MB cache. The extra core provides more headroom for the OS for the background stuff while running games. And of course it will be much faster for the first early games that started to actually utilize 2 cores instead of 1.

Reply 8 of 43, by mothergoose729

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Lo-ResBros wrote:
I know Windows XP is not really a neccesary build since anything that can be played on XP can most likely be played on any curre […]
Show full quote

I know Windows XP is not really a neccesary build since anything that can be played on XP can most likely be played on any current computer, but I don’t really have a current PC gaming setup or play any new games. I have some nostalgia playing games on Windows XP, games like Max Payne and GTA Vice City.

So for the hell of it, I figured I’d build a XP setup. I have 2 cpus laying around and not sure which would be better.

P4 521 HT Technology 2.8GHz. 1MB cache, 800MHz FSB
or
Pentium D 930 3.0GHz, 4MB cache, 800MHz FSB

I’m leaning towards actually using the P4 since it has hyper threading and it seems like generally people don’t like the pentium D very much, but I’m not sure if the hate for the pentium D is just compared to Intel’s Core 2 duo or not.

which would you guys pick?

Some games have problems with dual core CPUs. Farcry and F.E.A.R. come to mind. They can be patched, or have their affinity set in the task manager, but if you are playing any game that runs well on a p4 then why bother? Just use a single core CPU instead. I would also disable HT as well.

Are you on socket 775? You might consider getting something like an e5800, an 800mhz fsb core2, and seeing if you can find a way to disable the extra core in software, or with an option in your bios (my p43 chipset has a "Multicore" toggle that appears to do just that).

There are definitely games that either don't run correctly in later windows or will refuse to run at all. GoG has fixed most of that, but I still think a windows XP machine is worth while.

Reply 9 of 43, by realnc

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
mothergoose729 wrote:

Some games have problems with dual core CPUs. Farcry and F.E.A.R. come to mind. They can be patched, or have their affinity set in the task manager, but if you are playing any game that runs well on a p4 then why bother? Just use a single core CPU instead.

Why not instead disable one of the cores in the BIOS? This will still give you a single-core CPU that is faster than the P4. I really see no reason to prefer the P4 😵

Reply 10 of 43, by cyclone3d

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Since when does FarCry have issues with multiple CPU cores?

I never had any issues with it whatsoever.

I have also run F.E.A.R on a computer with multiple CPU cores. I didn't see any problems with it either.

XP can use the extra core for background stuff which will make the whole system run a whole lot smoother.

Yamaha modified setupds and drivers
Yamaha XG repository
YMF7x4 Guide
Aopen AW744L II SB-LINK

Reply 11 of 43, by Matth79

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Chipset can be an issue, if you have an Intel 915 chipset, that can only do P4, not Pentium D.
The D 930 is on the 65nm process, and is 95W TDP vs the 84W - the 90nm D would be far worse

The big hate for Pentium D, is that it has a pretty small window of platform sensibility, the smallish group of motherboards which can handle a Pentium D but not the far superior Core 2

Reply 12 of 43, by rodimus80

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I currently use a Quad Core Q6600 with a Geforce 9800 GTX. With 4GB Ram even though XP only uses 3GB and the icing on the cake is a Sound Blaster X-Fi Fata1ity Edition w/ Front Panel. Far Cry looks and plays like a dream. F.E.A.R.? No problem. Using the machine makes me long for XP days gone by. 🙁

Reply 13 of 43, by red_avatar

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Matth79 wrote:

Chipset can be an issue, if you have an Intel 915 chipset, that can only do P4, not Pentium D.
The D 930 is on the 65nm process, and is 95W TDP vs the 84W - the 90nm D would be far worse

The big hate for Pentium D, is that it has a pretty small window of platform sensibility, the smallish group of motherboards which can handle a Pentium D but not the far superior Core 2

I wouldn't call it "big hate" but the Pentium D appeared at a time when AMD still had a big market share - I recall the Core2Duo being the first CPU since the Pentium III that really convinced gamers. The Pentium 4 and D were not that popular (unless you count business machines of course). As such I mentally link Pentium D to inferior hardware. Although my experience with AMD CPUs of the time aren't that positive either 🤣

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 14 of 43, by chinny22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
rodimus80 wrote:

Sound Blaster X-Fi Fata1ity Edition w/ Front Panel.

This is the reason Winxp IS necessary, E.A.X.
Not to mention over powered PCI-E graphics cards that you can turn on AA,AF, etc up to the maximum and still enjoy games such as vice city without any slowdown 😀

Reply 15 of 43, by Intel486dx33

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Win-XP can support many processor cores. I recently had it installed on an HP z800 workstation with dual xeons ( 12-cores , 24-threads ) and 48gb ram.

WinXP does not work very well on single core or dual core CPU’s.
Runs good on a Quad core CPU or better.
I like the Intel Core-2-Quad CPU 9300 or higher.
With 4gb of DDR3 ram or more.
PCIe Video card.
SSD

I tried a Pentium-4 2ghz. And it did not perform well.

I used this setup.

It’s a Gigabyte motherboard GA-P43T-ES3G
https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-P43T-ES3G-rev-10#ov

You can find these refurbished on http://www.aliexpress.com for about $35

Philscomputerlab.com also recommends this motherboard for is versatility.
Works with Win98 - Win-10

Attachments

Reply 16 of 43, by SPBHM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I was playing recently on XP with a single core Sempron (with OC to 3.8GHz) and it works rather well;

the OP CPUs, well there is no reason to go with the P4 over the PD unless you want maybe a little lower power usage?

the situations where dual core is not well received are also probably not positive for HT.

Reply 17 of 43, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Wherever your postbot AI is getting its stuff it is wrong; WinXP works just fine on single core.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 18 of 43, by dkarguth

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I'm browsing this thread with Windows XP 32 bit, with a Core 2 Duo. Still fast enough to do pretty much everything that I want to do. I even used it as my main gaming rig up until around 4 years ago!

"And remember, this fix is only temporary, unless it works." -Red Green

Reply 19 of 43, by frudi

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Lo-ResBros wrote:

P4 521 HT Technology 2.8GHz. 1MB cache, 800MHz FSB
or
Pentium D 930 3.0GHz, 4MB cache, 800MHz FSB

Honestly, I wouldn't use either. Any Core 2 Duo will run circles around both of these at half the power draw and you can get one for absolutely dirt cheap, like $5 or less. You can put together a very quiet C2D system with just a cheap $10 cooler, but for a Pentium 4 and especially Pentium D you will need either a beefy cooler or put up with obnoxious fan noise.

Also both of those CPUs are socket 775, so whatever motherboard you have for them will most likely also support at least some range of C2D CPUs. And if you don't have a board yet, it's trivially easy to get one that supports the entire C2D range. Just settle on a budget and desired features - if you don't want to overclock and can make do with 2 RAM slots and other basic connectivity, you can probably find a usable board for as little as $10. Or 2-3 times as much if you want something fancier for decent overclocking and lots of expansion options.

So really, unless you have some nostalgic reason to go with a Pentium 4/D, there is really no good reason to not go with a Core 2 Duo instead. It basically doesn't cost any extra and is much faster and especially power efficient that it's not even funny.

And as for needing a quad core for Windows XP, no, you really don't. There weren't even any quad core CPUs available until Vista was already out. XP was absolutely still primarily the era of single core computing, even dual cores barely showed up towards the end, a year or so before Vista. And then games took even longer to make use of even two cores. So unless you want to also run late 2000's games on your XP build, you really don't need more than two cores.