How is that running? I have several pentium 3 systems but never missed with tualatin - the boards were always a lot harder to come by.

It's running great so far, very compatible, smooth (mostly), and I've only started to have problems with OCing when I push it past the 145 FSB and don't boost the voltage. Too bad I can't change the multiplier on these chips.

I was lucky enough to get this board (and another one that's VIA chipset dual tualatin socket) for pretty much pocket change.

The real beauty of the motherboard is the fact that I can change the FSB by 1 MHz increments from 66 to 200. That's the main reason I wanted this board... it's probably the best for overclocking when it comes to tualatin builds.

Your Tualatin rig is similar to the one I have in mind for myself actually 😉

I'm interested in how the GF3 Ti200 is running for you? It's a little bit of an oddball chip for me and noone I knew back then had one in a computer.
It was either GF2, GF4 or Radeon 9600.
The GF3 Ti200 is also much smaller then I thought when I finally got my hands on one. It vaguely resembles a Voodoo 3, but nevermind, that's just me 😜

When I build mine, I'll probably not overclock it though (unless I use a Tualeron 1200 of course, then I want 1.6Ghz! 😁)

Would this be faster than a single core Atom based netbook? Should be right?

Tetrium wrote:

I'm interested in how the GF3 Ti200 is running for you? It's a little bit of an oddball chip for me and noone I knew back then h […]
Show full quote

I'm interested in how the GF3 Ti200 is running for you? It's a little bit of an oddball chip for me and noone I knew back then had one in a computer.
It was either GF2, GF4 or Radeon 9600.
The GF3 Ti200 is also much smaller then I thought when I finally got my hands on one. It vaguely resembles a Voodoo 3, but nevermind, that's just me 😜

When I build mine, I'll probably not overclock it though (unless I use a Tualeron 1200 of course, then I want 1.6Ghz! 😁)

No one you knew had one? It was very common here- they sold them well into the GF4 era at a cheaper price of course. One guy was even bringing in new units from China last year.

Performance wise its below a 4200ti, but not by much plus it can be overclocked to ti500 speeds at which point the difference is not that large.

A note on the Tualeron 1200- few reach 1.6ghz. Most will only just tap 1.4 something and you can't really crank up the fsb for obvious reasons. Much better to get a 1000a or 1100. Or the best after fiddling with such things is a proper 512k Tualatin 1.4ghz and oc that mildly to around the 1.5ghz mark.

sgt76 wrote:

No one you knew had one? It was very common here- they sold them well into the GF4 era at a cheaper price of course. One guy wa […]
Show full quote

Tetrium wrote:

I'm interested in how the GF3 Ti200 is running for you? It's a little bit of an oddball chip for me and noone I knew back then h […]
Show full quote

I'm interested in how the GF3 Ti200 is running for you? It's a little bit of an oddball chip for me and noone I knew back then had one in a computer.
It was either GF2, GF4 or Radeon 9600.
The GF3 Ti200 is also much smaller then I thought when I finally got my hands on one. It vaguely resembles a Voodoo 3, but nevermind, that's just me 😜

When I build mine, I'll probably not overclock it though (unless I use a Tualeron 1200 of course, then I want 1.6Ghz! 😁)

No one you knew had one? It was very common here- they sold them well into the GF4 era at a cheaper price of course. One guy was even bringing in new units from China last year.

Performance wise its below a 4200ti, but not by much plus it can be overclocked to ti500 speeds at which point the difference is not that large.

A note on the Tualeron 1200- few reach 1.6ghz. Most will only just tap 1.4 something and you can't really crank up the fsb for obvious reasons. Much better to get a 1000a or 1100. Or the best after fiddling with such things is a proper 512k Tualatin 1.4ghz and oc that mildly to around the 1.5ghz mark.

You are right on basically all points! 😁

But still, I knew noone in my immediate vicinity who actually had a GF3.
And about Tualeron, you can increase your chances of a successful overclock by starting with one of the newer steppings (and good cooling). To me the hardest part is actually finding a board that can overvolt the CPU. I got a couple different Tualatin boards, just haven't gotten around yet to see which ones are actually capable of overvolting the CPU (I know some of the more common ASUS boards can't).
The reason why I want 1.6Ghz is because I would presume that it's enough of a speed increase to roughly match the 1.4s, which is my intent.

Just grab one of these and don't do too much fooling around with overclocking

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tualatin-Pentium-III-S-1- … =item230f8889ee

Tualatins, whether they are Celeron or P-III only do 1.6ghz stable overclocked in most cases. Some people have gotten them higher but have had to increase the voltage to an insane level for only minimal gains and it's not worth it because you'll be cooking your CPU every time you turn it on. You're better off starting with a P-IIIS for the additional on chip cache and higher starting bus speed.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Would this be faster than a single core Atom based netbook? Should be right?

Well, I was a bit curious about this myself. The Intel Atom is a much newer chip though and 130nm vs 45nm and 133MHz FSB vs 533MHz FSB doesn't look good for the PIII. Nevertheless I benched my system several times with Passmark 7.
First test yielded ~347
Second test yielded ~331
Third test yielded ~329
My theory is that the CPU started to overheat and the flimsy heatsink/fan couldn't keep it cool enough to hold the throttle back.

Passmark 7 results for the Intel Atoms.
Z550 @ 2GHz = 385
N470 @ 1.83GHz = 353
Z540 @ 1.86GHz = 349
D410 @ 1.66GHz = 342
N475 @ 1.83GHz = 337
N450 & N455 @ 1.66GHz = 319
230 @ 1.6GHz = 315
N280 @ 1.66GHz = 314
D425 @ 1.8GHz = 307
N270 @ 1.6GHz = 304
Z530 @ 1.5GHz = 296
Z670 @ 1.5GHz = 294
Z520 @ 1.33GHz = 249
Z515 @ 1.2GHz = 218
Z510 @ 1.1GHz = 186

I have yet to do much for benchmarks on the video card but it already looks smoother than most cards of its era and it's visually more pleasing than any Voodoo that I've used.

I nudged the FSB to 145 and hit 362.6 @ 1.52GHz. That should suffice for OC benchmarking until I get a copper heatsink/fan.
Still, in light of everything, I think my lil' tualatin benched pretty well.

Edit: Cleaned up the hard drive a little more and rebenched it to 378 @ 1.52GHz.

nemesis wrote:

I nudged the FSB to 145 and hit 362.6 @ 1.52GHz. That should suffice for OC benchmarking until I get a copper heatsink/fan.
Still, in light of everything, I think my lil' tualatin benched pretty well.

You're already pretty close to the wall at 1.52ghz. I'd try pushing just that little bit more to 1.6ghz before investing any money in it. It's not really going to be worth spending good money on an all copper heatsink for just that tiny bit of speed that you're missing. You won't get higher than 1.6ghz without increasing the voltage anyway and even then you'll only get a few hundredths of a ghz but you'll be all the way up to 2.0v just to get that little bit more which is the reason why trying to go higher than 1.6ghz isn't practical. The return you get for the risk you take isn't worth it.

nemesis wrote:

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Would this be faster than a single core Atom based netbook? Should be right?

Well, I was a bit curious about this myself. The Intel Atom is a much newer chip though and 130nm vs 45nm and 133MHz FSB vs 533MHz FSB doesn't look good for the PIII.

That's pretty good! ~ the speed of a single core netbook, not bad at all.

With enough memory you should be able to install Windows 7 without any issues.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

nemesis wrote:

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Would this be faster than a single core Atom based netbook? Should be right?

Well, I was a bit curious about this myself. The Intel Atom is a much newer chip though and 130nm vs 45nm and 133MHz FSB vs 533MHz FSB doesn't look good for the PIII.

That's pretty good! ~ the speed of a single core netbook, not bad at all.

With enough memory you should be able to install Windows 7 without any issues.

With Intel chipsets, I can't go higher than 512 MB of ram. So I'm pretty much stuck with Windows XP as my best Microsoft OS option. I'm considering using a Linux flavor sometime to see if it's much more efficient.

As a side note, I'm honestly surprised at how fast this thing is compared to the Atom chips when you make a raw comparison to the cache, FSB, ram compatibility etc... and as you know this chip is faster than Pentium 4s of the same performace bracket. Of course I'm just greedy and want more power anyway. 🤑

512MB limit? Damn that makes it tricky...

This was all in the mission to push P4 right?

Even XP is slow with 512 once you have all the latest service packs. At least that's the impression I'm getting.

But yea, what is it you want to do with this machine? AFAIK the P3 is a great choice for a high performance DOS / Windows 98SE gaming platform. Think DOS games in 800x 600 and higher...

My first intent with this build was to gain experience with the legendary tualatin cpu and the almost as famous GA-6OXET-C motherboard. At first I considered this a dream, but then I caught these parts dirt cheap (well the cpus are usually cheap if you trust shipping from china. No offense ment toward chinese folks, but I've been ripped off before by people claiming to be shipping from China, just makes it easier for me to get it fro Europe or USA).

My second purpose for this system is to experience overclocking on the hobbled Intel CPU (yes, it may be legendary, but I consider it handicapped if it has a locked multiplier and I can't get ahold of engineering samples very easily).

I'm not really sure where I'm going to fit this in my small lineup of computers... for DOS, I already have a 133MHz 5x86 amd. For Win98se or higher end DOS, I have a K6-2E+ 570 (often OC'd to 600MHz). For most higher versions of windows or Dosboxing, I have a multimedia PC @ 2.6GHz and a 3.4GHz gaming tower (probably could use some updating now 🤣). I guess I really wanted a system to run Win XP 32 bit.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

512MB limit? Damn that makes it tricky... […]
Show full quote

512MB limit? Damn that makes it tricky...

This was all in the mission to push P4 right?

Even XP is slow with 512 once you have all the latest service packs. At least that's the impression I'm getting.

But yea, what is it you want to do with this machine? AFAIK the P3 is a great choice for a high performance DOS / Windows 98SE gaming platform. Think DOS games in 800x 600 and higher...

Yup. I've noticed the same using XP.
However, if you're using XP for only a bit of gaming (so maybe only nlite SP3 and remove some of the other stuff) then XP runs pretty well with 512MB provided you don't go on the net with it.

I'd be curious to see what kind of 3dmark 2000 and 2001SE scores you get.

Tetrium wrote:

However, if you're using XP for only a bit of gaming (so maybe only nlite SP3 and remove some of the other stuff) then XP runs pretty well with 512MB provided you don't go on the net with it.

I wouldn't nlite it. I always tweak my XP installs as a matter of habit and doing so get it down to using only 80-120+mb of ram at idle (depending on which services I need). By doing so I run full SP3 installs pretty snappily on 512mb systems. In fact, I find the bottleneck to be cpu power rather than ram, i.e. a 600mhz cpu with 768mb ram is less snappy than a P4 2.8Ghz with 512mb. Until 2007, my work machine was a 512mb P4 3.0ghz which I used very heavily and my home machine was on 512mb ram until 2006- I even played Oblivion on it (oh shock! horror!).

At this point, the highest I got the FSB to launch at was 148 for 1.55GHz.

Not sure if the board or cpu is a dud, or if it's because I have a pci sound card and pci network card installed... suppose that could be it.

Something else I don't totally understand, I went back to the 1.52GHz (I optimized the ram timings a little too but not much) and watched it passmark at 430! That's right on par with an Athlon 2400+, and passes every Atom report thus far (as far as I can see anyway).

Any thoughts or comments from experienced overclockers are welcome, otherwise I'm probably going to give up on 1.6GHz with this chip for now.

nemesis wrote:

At this point, the highest I got the FSB to launch at was 148 for 1.55GHz. […]
Show full quote

At this point, the highest I got the FSB to launch at was 148 for 1.55GHz.

Not sure if the board or cpu is a dud, or if it's because I have a pci sound card and pci network card installed... suppose that could be it.

Something else I don't totally understand, I went back to the 1.52GHz (I optimized the ram timings a little too but not much) and watched it passmark at 430! That's right on par with an Athlon 2400+, and passes every Atom report thus far (as far as I can see anyway).

Any thoughts or comments from experienced overclockers are welcome, otherwise I'm probably going to give up on 1.6GHz with this chip for now.

You're probably going to have to tweak the voltage to get it to any higher and still run stable. Like I say, though, there are limits to how much voltage they can take and the voltage required to get it to 1.6ghz and run stable is already pushing your luck. Getting it stable at higher than that requires insane voltage which is going to fry the CPU over time.