I love the quad cores because they make such good general use PC's. Dual boot with a modern Linux distro and you can use a modern OS to retrieve drivers and software and what not without having to utilize a second pc, and XP runs absolutely amazing. 4gb or more of ram, throw in an SSD and it feels like a fast modern day PC.

Hello ODwilly. That's not what I am seeking for. Although it sounds like an effecient solution...
Nevertheless I'm now awaiting the delivery of two new (used) CPUs. I am curious how they will perform in my setup.

I don't know what your mobo works with unofficially, but officially you don't really have an upgrade path. https://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/775i65G/#CPU.
I was checking out the same motherboard just today considering whether I should upgrade my main XP build to s775+AGP for the multi-core CPU support without losing W98 support, but it didn't really looked appealing.
Though I found this a little odd. The Gigabyte GA-8I865GME-775-RH with the same north and south bridge supports the whole Core2 palette and the Asrock got BIOS updates up until 2009 so maybe just the CPU support list wasn't updated?

Anyway, if it does support the Core2 then maybe the E7500 is the best fit https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/p … 66-mhz-fsb.html
I wouldn't expect the HD3850 to be bottlenecked by that.

RandomStranger wrote on 2021-02-15, 20:10:

I don't know what your mobo works with unofficially, but officially you don't really have an upgrade path. https://www.asrock.co […]
Show full quote

I don't know what your mobo works with unofficially, but officially you don't really have an upgrade path. https://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/775i65G/#CPU.
I was checking out the same motherboard just today considering whether I should upgrade my main XP build to s775+AGP for the multi-core CPU support without losing W98 support, but it didn't really looked appealing.
Though I found this a little odd. The Gigabyte GA-8I865GME-775-RH with the same north and south bridge supports the whole Core2 palette and the Asrock got BIOS updates up until 2009 so maybe just the CPU support list wasn't updated?

Anyway, if it does support the Core2 then maybe the E7500 is the best fit https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/p … 66-mhz-fsb.html
I wouldn't expect the HD3850 to be bottlenecked by that.

He has ( I own a 775i65g revision 2.03... ) so this one https://asrock.com/mb/Intel/775i65G%20R2.0/index.us.asp#CPU

RandomStranger wrote on 2021-02-15, 20:10:

I don't know what your mobo works with unofficially, but officially you don't really have an upgrade path. https://www.asrock.co […]
Show full quote

I don't know what your mobo works with unofficially, but officially you don't really have an upgrade path. https://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/775i65G/#CPU.
I was checking out the same motherboard just today considering whether I should upgrade my main XP build to s775+AGP for the multi-core CPU support without losing W98 support, but it didn't really looked appealing.
Though I found this a little odd. The Gigabyte GA-8I865GME-775-RH with the same north and south bridge supports the whole Core2 palette and the Asrock got BIOS updates up until 2009 so maybe just the CPU support list wasn't updated?

Anyway, if it does support the Core2 then maybe the E7500 is the best fit https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/p … 66-mhz-fsb.html
I wouldn't expect the HD3850 to be bottlenecked by that.

It does support the Core 2 Duo E7500. I have it on one of my 775i65g rev. 2 motherboards. Works great in both Win98 and XP. 😀

Any way to get the 3850 running in win98?

Lazar81 wrote on 2021-02-15, 20:46:

Any way to get the 3850 running in win98?

I don't think so. The ATI x800 series are the fastest graphics cards you can make work in windows 98 in terms of raw fps. The rare AGP versions of the nvidia 7000 series could be faster in some scenarios.

If you want to dual boot windows 98, IMO the thing that makes the most sense is a PCI voodoo 3, or maybe a 2d card with a voodoo 2.

Lazar81 wrote on 2021-02-15, 20:46:

Any way to get the 3850 running in win98?

No... anyway, that would be an ultra-mega overkill card for Win98 😀
But I agree that it would be awesome for an XP/Win98 (maybe even DOS?) time machine.
Now I’m actually wondering if the HD3850 still retains DOS compatibility... anybody ever tested one of these in pure DOS? 😁

mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-02-15, 21:15:

If you want to dual boot windows 98, IMO the thing that makes the most sense is a PCI voodoo 3, or maybe a 2d card with a voodoo 2.

The Voodoo 3 PCi would work (but it’s a bit cumbersome to switch).
However, the Voodoo 2 would not be a good option as a pair for the HD3850... you’d be stuck in 256 color mode in Windows.

Then I stay with my plan... The 775 board with 3850 will be an XP only thing. For Win98 I have my PIII (+gf4ti4600) - and a K6-III(+voodoo3 3000)

Maybe I'll try again this 462 project I put on hold recently. This could be nice for XP/98 dual boot. It has a 6800gt (with a nice ac silencer 😀.... ). But at the moment I'll focus on this here.

I just looked up the E6800... Can anyone tell if this is compatible with the 775i65g? Think it should be... I would like to test this one too.

Lazar81 wrote on 2021-02-16, 09:15:

I just looked up the E6800... Can anyone tell if this is compatible with the 775i65g? Think it should be... I would like to test this one too.

Only the E6700

Ok.. just thought the list could be incomplete

Lazar81 wrote on 2021-02-16, 09:31:

Ok.. just thought the list could be incomplete

It is. Bloodem claims to use it with an E7500 and the whole E7xxx series is also missing from the list. So I guess it's likely, but not guaranteed to work with the E6800.

Yes, for sure that compatibility list is incomplete. It's very possible that most CPUs from that era with a bus speed of up to 1066MHz will work OK (but not 100% sure).
What I am sure is that, with the latest BIOS revision:
- Pentium Dual core E5800 works great (and it has the advantage that it does not overclock the FSB, it runs at the native 800 MHz).
- Core 2 Duo E7500 also works great (but it does overclock the FSB to 266/1066, and it takes 5 - 10 seconds for the board to start POST with this CPU).

Another thing worth mentioning is that I've found little difference in performance between E5800 and E7500. The E5800 can actually be a bit better if you want to overclock (you can easily overclock it to 3.6 - 3.8 GHz). On the other hand, you can't overclock the E7500, since this CPU already havily overclocks the FSB in order to run at stock settings.

Ah ok... I already assumed that there will be minor problems with the higher fsb... so maybe the e5800 could be the really best pick...

Besides: guessing that the CPU is strong enough I don't think overclocking will be necessary...

Hello there... I just installed the E5800... Man what a difference!!! I ran 3dmark03 and 05 with the p4 before and now with the dual core... It's like exchanging ones bicycle with a sports wagon... 😀 But to came back to the ground. It is really nice - didn't think to see so much difference.

Of course, the slowest C2D is on par with the fastest 3.8GHz non-EE Prescott.

I had a 3.0E for a while in 2004 and I couldn't really notice a difference between it and a 1833MHz TBred B on a 9800 Pro.

Hello,
Just to try it I overclocked the E5800 - then something occurred which I didn't expect. I don't know if this is normal behavior. Whenever I put the speed higher it results in a delay of the bios screen to appear! The higher the clock speed the higher the delay. Is this normal behavior?

I'm not sure what you mean by "delay of the bios screen to appear".
Do you mean a delay until POST starts? Yes, it's normal behavior for this board, when the FSB is overclocked. However, this does not affect the functionality in any way - it just adds 5 - 10 seconds to the initial boot.

bloodem wrote on 2021-02-23, 12:27:

I'm not sure what you mean by "delay of the bios screen to appear".
Do you mean a delay until POST starts? Yes, it's normal behavior for this board, when the FSB is overclocked. However, this does not affect the functionality in any way - it just adds 5 - 10 seconds to the initial boot.

yesterday I put the value up to 220 (not that much imo) a soft reboot ended up in nothing... It won't boot at all. Turning the PC off and then on again resultet in a Post delay for a very long time... Didn't measure... Putting the value to 210 runs without problems but brings a delay as well. I thought up to 250 should be no problem... But maybe I'm wrong.