You can manually set affinity anyway. There are utilities to do that easy, like CPU-Control.

Warlord wrote on 2020-08-26, 12:53:

List of updates that require sse2 KB4034775, KB4343674, KB4458000, KB4458006, KB4462987, KB4463573, KB4473077, KB4487085-v2, KB4 […]
Show full quote

red-ray wrote on 2020-08-26, 10:50:

BinaryDemon wrote on 2020-08-26, 10:39:

there are some late XP patches that assume you have SSE2 instructions and will bork a Pentium3 or older machine.

I don't think so, I have fully patched XP SP3 running on my both P-!!! + Athlon MP systems. As I recall it's Windows 7 that has the patches that need SSE2

List of updates that require sse2
KB4034775, KB4343674, KB4458000, KB4458006, KB4462987, KB4463573, KB4473077, KB4487085-v2, KB4487385, KB4489977, KB4490385, KB4493793, KB4493794, KB4493795, KB4493796, KB4493797, KB4494528, KB4495022.

Of course when u say you have fully updates, that is objectionable.

Checking https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Sear … 9-04%20POSReady these are not Windows XP Home/Professional updates and what I find objectionable is you failing to specify this.

By default Windows XP Home + Professional will not install these and you need to set HLKM\System\WPA\PosReady\Installed to 1 which I feel you should also mention.

The OSs I have for this all fall in the NT world.
Win NT 3.51, Win NT 4, Windows 2000(NT5), Win XP 32-bit(NT5.1). It seems like Windows 2000 fits better with the P III and I really don't want to use Windows 2000.
So I'm really thinking a later P4 would be better.

which is why I say its objectionable
POS is windows XP and you technically don't not need to have that reg file to download and manually install hot fixes
To me XP is not really fully updated without the 4 years of pos updates, and I think most people agree that fully updated means POS
However there is a POS update pack that exclude those files SSE2 Files. Again not needing regs or auto updates to install.
There is actually zero difference between XP and POS.

Indeed it's objectionable. IMHO you can't call an OS that hasn't had an hotfix for almost a year up to date.
wannacry showed that, even if you apply every update, plenty of other vulnerabilities remain unpatched.

but back on topic
Yes that's the most common pairing, both back then and still today.
P3 for Win2k, P4 for WinXP

So, going with the Pentium 4.
Socket 478 or LGA 775?
Is there an advantage one over the other?

steevf wrote on 2020-09-06, 17:33:

So, going with the Pentium 4.
Socket 478 or LGA 775?
Is there an advantage one over the other?

478 is older and as chinny22 mentioned, would have AGP.
478 is also more likely to work with Windows 98/ME but that seems irrelevant here as you're going with XP.
Unless you want either of those, I'd go with 775.
Why don't you pick out a CPU first?

S370 means option to use via c3, and usually have at least one ISA slot. Good for dos/win95 era.

P4 means no isa, but close to fastest AGP system you can build. Good for win98 era.

steevf wrote on 2020-09-06, 17:33:

So, going with the Pentium 4.
Socket 478 or LGA 775?
Is there an advantage one over the other?

if you use both of these with the same chipset and kind of CPU performance will be the same,
what is different is compatibility, lga 775 obviously has better compatibility with newer stuff, 478 with older stuff.

775 is mostly 2005 and newer, 478 mostly 2004 and older (but there are things like lga 775 boards with AGP and good windows 98 compatibility, and s478 boards with chipsets from 2007 and such, but these are less common)

jakethompson1 wrote on 2020-09-06, 17:58:

478 is older and as chinny22 mentioned, would have AGP. 478 is also more likely to work with Windows 98/ME but that seems irrele […]
Show full quote

478 is older and as chinny22 mentioned, would have AGP.
478 is also more likely to work with Windows 98/ME but that seems irrelevant here as you're going with XP.
Unless you want either of those, I'd go with 775.
Why don't you pick out a CPU first?

It's more about what features can I get on the motherboard.
I would like to find a motherboard that is going to have IDE, SATA, PCI and PCIe. And if I can get that with an ISA slot it would be nice but not completely necessary. AGP isn't that important.

Intel 975X.

steevf wrote on 2020-09-06, 18:51:

It's more about what features can I get on the motherboard.
I would like to find a motherboard that is going to have IDE, SATA, PCI and PCIe. And if I can get that with an ISA slot it would be nice but not completely necessary. AGP isn't that important.

Caution that an ISA slot on Pentium 4 boards may not be functional in terms of an ISA sound card. It has something to do with ISA DMA being broken in later chipsets.

I have two systems using the evga 680i boards and I've had them since they were new and both systems have been super stable and still get used heavily. The nforce 680i chipset supports the majority of the core 2 duo/quad line as well as sckt 775 P4's. I would highly recommend this chipset

steevf wrote on 2020-08-26, 03:16:

I've been looking into building an XP system and I'm trying to decide on a Pentium III or a Pentium 4. I used to have a Pentium […]
Show full quote

I've been looking into building an XP system and I'm trying to decide on a Pentium III or a Pentium 4. I used to have a Pentium 4 1 Ghz system that I sued from 2002 to 2009. It had 4 GB ram and an AGP Geforce 4 Ti something (4200 or 4400) graphics card. But when the motherboard died, I regrettably threw it out. I did keep the sound card out of it as it had my Sound Canvas daughter-board attached to it. It was an MSI motherboard but I have no other information. I just didn't keep the specs.

Well, also way back in the time period of 2002, my work computer at the time was a P III and I think it was running at about 800 MHz. But I have no idea what the video card was and I think it only had 2 GB RAM.

So what I remember for some reason, is that my P III work computer was a lot more snappier in performance than my P4 home computer.
I never really looked into why it seemed that way. Does this make sense? We also had some Dual PIII 500 MHz systems at work that seem to always out perform the 1 GHz P4 systems. And I've always felt like my Pentium 4 was a bit of a let down in performance when I got it. Like it should have been much better than the PIIIs at the time. Does that perception seem reasonable or could I be misremembering this? Was I imagining things or is it possible that the P4 wasn't really that great of a CPU over the PIII? I feel like they were probably almost even in performance.

So I'm wondering if I should try to rebuild my XP computer as a Pentium 4 or Pentium III?

It probably won't be a gaming machine. It's more for running older design software.

Actually did a comparison of several year 2000 systems a while ago.
Contenders were a P3EB-1GHz (ABIT ST6, i815, SDRAM), TB1200 (Abit KG7, AMD 760, DDR), P4-1.4GHz (Intel D850GB, i850, RDRAM).
Also added a typical 1999 and 2001 systems.

Did lots of benches but most looked like this:

So while the P4 was a disappointment, it outperforms the P3's of the same era.

bofh.fromhell wrote on 2020-09-07, 02:08:

Actually did a comparison of several year 2000 systems a while ago. Contenders were a P3EB-1GHz (ABIT ST6, i815, SDRAM), TB1200 […]
Show full quote

steevf wrote on 2020-08-26, 03:16:

I've been looking into building an XP system and I'm trying to decide on a Pentium III or a Pentium 4. I used to have a Pentium […]
Show full quote

I've been looking into building an XP system and I'm trying to decide on a Pentium III or a Pentium 4. I used to have a Pentium 4 1 Ghz system that I sued from 2002 to 2009. It had 4 GB ram and an AGP Geforce 4 Ti something (4200 or 4400) graphics card. But when the motherboard died, I regrettably threw it out. I did keep the sound card out of it as it had my Sound Canvas daughter-board attached to it. It was an MSI motherboard but I have no other information. I just didn't keep the specs.

Well, also way back in the time period of 2002, my work computer at the time was a P III and I think it was running at about 800 MHz. But I have no idea what the video card was and I think it only had 2 GB RAM.

So what I remember for some reason, is that my P III work computer was a lot more snappier in performance than my P4 home computer.
I never really looked into why it seemed that way. Does this make sense? We also had some Dual PIII 500 MHz systems at work that seem to always out perform the 1 GHz P4 systems. And I've always felt like my Pentium 4 was a bit of a let down in performance when I got it. Like it should have been much better than the PIIIs at the time. Does that perception seem reasonable or could I be misremembering this? Was I imagining things or is it possible that the P4 wasn't really that great of a CPU over the PIII? I feel like they were probably almost even in performance.

So I'm wondering if I should try to rebuild my XP computer as a Pentium 4 or Pentium III?

It probably won't be a gaming machine. It's more for running older design software.

Actually did a comparison of several year 2000 systems a while ago.
Contenders were a P3EB-1GHz (ABIT ST6, i815, SDRAM), TB1200 (Abit KG7, AMD 760, DDR), P4-1.4GHz (Intel D850GB, i850, RDRAM).
Also added a typical 1999 and 2001 systems.

Did lots of benches but most looked like this:

So while the P4 was a disappointment, it outperforms the P3's of the same era.

The P4 in your graph beats the P3 in 3dmark2001, is almost tied in 3dmark 2000 and the P3 also gets beaten by the P4 in 3dmark 99,but never by a significant margin. I would call it almost a tie. And if you consider the P4 has a faster FSB, 400 MHz faster clock and higher RAM bandwidth, I really can't of anything good to say about it in the 2000 time frame . Netburst was a dud . Only faster clocks saved the later P4 chips, to a point.

EDITED for typos and me misreading the graph.

P4 is ok if you want a cheap system for Windows 98 and early XP games. Once you get into things like DOS games and ISA slots, a P3 is more practical and easier to find boards. And if you only want XP games, an Athlon64 or Core2 will beat the P4.

So the P4 is not the best choice for anything, but it might not matter, depending on your intended use.

PCIe is the successor to AGP and the changeover was during this period which resulted in
AGP being standard on 478
PCIe being standard on 775

Crossover boards (so 478 with PCIe or 775 with AGP) do exist but weren't mainstream.

IDE,SATA,PCI are common across both types.
ISA isn't common for either.

pixel_workbench wrote on 2020-09-07, 07:11:

P4 is ok if you want a cheap system for Windows 98 and early XP games. Once you get into things like DOS games and ISA slots, a P3 is more practical and easier to find boards. And if you only want XP games, an Athlon64 or Core2 will beat the P4.

So the P4 is not the best choice for anything, but it might not matter, depending on your intended use.

I dunno. Given how cheap it is to put together, they probably have a claim to being the very best Win98 PC (~1998-2001). The 3.4ghz P4 Northwood was the fastest processor of it's era. Honestly the biggest drawback is the lack of a 3.3v Universal AGP slot, which means if you want to run a v5/v3 in there, you better look at the Athlon XP system, which will probably set you back a lot more.

Crossover boards (so 478 with PCIe or 775 with AGP) do exist but weren't mainstream.

LGA775 AGP with i865 chipset variation is mainstream. Also plethora of VIA based MATX boards. They are very easy to find to this day. Some even have Core 2 support.

Honestly the biggest drawback is the lack of a 3.3v Universal AGP slot

Not a real problem. Just pick SIS645DX board. Although I would still prefer Athlon XP with KT333.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-09-07, 10:27:

Honestly the biggest drawback is the lack of a 3.3v Universal AGP slot

Not a real problem. Just pick SIS645DX board. Although I would still prefer Athlon XP with KT333.

Well there's about 3 for sale in the entire world right now, only one of which is affordable 😒