How well can I expect a P3 Tualatin 1.4GHz, TUSL2-C, 512MB RAM machine to perform with XP and same-period games?
P.S. Video card is a 6800GT AGP
Fine.
CPU is a little weak for post-2005 stuff though, but should still be fine for everything before.
Agreed, it'll work well for early 2000s, late 90s, etc. Stuff like Fallout 3 might not love you, but stuff like Halo should be good.
should do rather well, a P3 1.4 is what about as fast as a P4 1.8 or Athlon XP 1600 correct? If so you should be fine.
I'd stick to 2000-2001 games. Even some of those can benefit from more CPU power than a P3-S. It's optimistic to say it's similar to an Athlon XP unless you're talking about a SDRAM-based Athlon. It will be quite memory bandwidth bottlenecked.
XP itself will run fine as long as you can get enough RAM in the machine. 512MB won't be great.
wrote:I'd stick to 2000-2001 games. Even some of those can benefit from more CPU power than a P3-S. It's optimistic to say it's similar to an Athlon XP unless you're talking about a SDRAM-based Athlon. It will be quite memory bandwidth bottlenecked.
well back in 01 how many people where running DDR for their athlons, I remember my friends that could even afford an Athlon where buying KT133A boards which is how I'd pair a palomino up anyway.
wrote:well back in 01 how many people where running DDR for their athlons, I remember my friends that could even afford an Athlon where buying KT133A boards which is how I'd pair a palomino up anyway.
I have no idea why you'd see KT133A as the ideal Palomino platform. That was Thunderbird or Spitfire.
DDR was similar to/cheaper than SDRAM per capacity in 2001.
It will work great. As long as you have 256 MB of RAM or more.
-edit-
I see you have 512. No problems. You can probably play games up to about 2003 or use it for light browsing
Very light web browsing.
512MB is fine for XP as long as you stay away from SP3.
I have a SuperMicro server with dual 1.4GHz Tualatins and 2GB ECC, and it seemed pretty slow, but it could be the hard drive is slow as well, plus it's only PATA. But the system only has a single PCI-X slot, which I always planned on filling with a better video card.
Yeah I'd blame the hard drive. Try that system with a SSD on a SATA/PATA adapter and it'll overhaul your opinion of the system. PATA itself is not the issue. Even UDMA66 is plenty to make a really smooth system.
wrote:512MB is fine for XP as long as you stay away from SP3.
Amen to that. Agreed.
I always had the impression that SP2 is the one that ramped specs up and SP1a was the sweet spot. All I remember, though, is that my dad's notebook (256MB RAM) performed decently with retail XP, but crawled when I formatted it and put SP3 in there.
honestly SP2 was the start of the hog, with SP2 1gb became the recomended norm, and 512 computers instantly seemed much slower. If its a choice, I'd use Windows 2000 over XP SP1, as at least 2000 has newer software supporting it than XP SP1, and its even less of a resource hog.
Thanks for all the replies. I may need to go with Windows 2000 then. As I'm sure you all know, the TUSL2-C will not support more than 512mb. The only XP disc I have includes service pack 3. If I'm going to have to procure another disc, I might as well try to find a nice copy of Win2k on eBay.
We were just talking about this over here:
Re: Win98SE or WinXP for Tualatin 1.4S+i815?
which links to:
Re: Is Windows 2000 good for anything?
