appiah4 wrote on 2024-05-09, 13:21:

What exactly are the sorry AGP options for Socket 754/939?

I think he means this: VIA zero bytes AGP memory bug | Navigation thread

Cyberdyne wrote on 2024-05-09, 12:52:

Well yes if you do not have something better. Just for me the era of P4 and the era of early AMD 64bit is dead. I jumped from a souped up AMD Athlon XP ISA motherboard to a late Core2 that I still have. Usually like to transfer to mature and good platforms.P166MMX to BX P3 500 to AMD Athlon XP to Core2Duo to late AMD A10. All cheap and mature end of production.

What does "better" mean though?

If we're comparing something like an Athlon XP as a pure Win 9x or early XP build, in my own experience my P4 setup outperforms a comparable Athlon XP. It has higher performance for early XP / early-2000's era. The P4 also doesn't have the same high +5V dependency that typical Athlon XP processors motherboards do, allowing for more PSU options.

As an all-in-one, I'm not aware of any system that would cover that comparably. It replaces the need for multiple systems like a P166 or P3-500. So right away there is a trade-off between a single system versus several systems.

Cyberdyne wrote on 2024-05-09, 12:28:

Only problem with P4 rings is high power consumption.

Pentium 4 Northwood and late revisions of Prescott have similar TDP to Athlon/Athlon XP, so it's hardly an issue.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-05-04, 18:39:

The Pentium 4 seems to have a mixed rep. I've seen some folks straight-up swear off ever even looking at a Pentium 4, let alone […]
Show full quote

The Pentium 4 seems to have a mixed rep. I've seen some folks straight-up swear off ever even looking at a Pentium 4, let alone creating a build based on one.

Though most of the negative rep stems from the under-performing Willamette processors and the power hungry Prescott lineup, but I feel like it's tarred the entire P4 lineup.

While there are some P4 builds I've dug through, I'm surprised we don't see more of them and wonder if the negative P4 rep has maybe steered people away from viable and versatile retro-gaming builds.

My own experience building a system around a Cedar Mill processor has been quite positive. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, while continuously being impressed this processor and platform.

What is everyone's thoughts on the P4? Is it underrated? Is there potential for some amazing retro gaming builds that haven't been realized yet?

I personally tend to stick with athlon processors for late windows 9x computing but ive used various models of P4 processors in retro builds with no problems.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-05-09, 16:03:

What does "better" mean though? […]
Show full quote

Cyberdyne wrote on 2024-05-09, 12:52:

Well yes if you do not have something better. Just for me the era of P4 and the era of early AMD 64bit is dead. I jumped from a souped up AMD Athlon XP ISA motherboard to a late Core2 that I still have. Usually like to transfer to mature and good platforms.P166MMX to BX P3 500 to AMD Athlon XP to Core2Duo to late AMD A10. All cheap and mature end of production.

What does "better" mean though?

If we're comparing something like an Athlon XP as a pure Win 9x or early XP build, in my own experience my P4 setup outperforms a comparable Athlon XP. It has higher performance for early XP / early-2000's era. The P4 also doesn't have the same high +5V dependency that Athlon XP processors do, allowing for more PSU options.

As an all-in-one, I'm not aware of any system that would cover that comparably. It replaces the need for multiple systems like a P166 or P3-500. So right away there is a trade-off between a single system versus several systems.

for me as someone who likes to build as period correct as possible, these processors always make it hard for me to decide. i usually go with athlon because i love post 2000 processors.

theelf wrote on 2024-05-04, 18:57:

A P4 is retro? exept very rare boards no P4+ boards have ISA, then not good for DOS

time flies by

VivienM wrote on 2024-05-04, 22:04:

I don't think I would consider something from 2008 to be retro; it can still boot a currently supported Windows version (includi […]
Show full quote

theelf wrote on 2024-05-04, 21:54:

But im here in 2024 writing this to you in a Xeon 775 from 2008, using Supermium and XP SP3... how can consider retro... if i use everyday for modern use? in my opinion computers really did not change much this last 20 years... just more power

I don't think I would consider something from 2008 to be retro; it can still boot a currently supported Windows version (including, for now, 11 unsupportedly though apparently that will change when they add some new CPU instruction dependencies soon), it can run a current web browser and current application software, and you can buy parts for it at the local computer store, etc.

But a P4...? I guess maybe you can boot 32-bit Windows 10 on it, it probably wouldn't be very usable...

I would argue that the C2D in 2006 led to a bit of an 'end of history' moment for the PC and... everything newer than the C2D has remained strangely viable 18 years later, whereas everything older than the C2D was from that era where computers gained massive performance/memory/storage and became hopelessly obsolete after 3-5 years. And that era... is most definitely retro at this point.

i think anything post 2003 can be considered retro, same system as vintage clothing.

(not saying clothes and computers are similar in any way)

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-05-09, 16:03:

The P4 also doesn't have the same high +5V dependency that Athlon XP processors do, allowing for more PSU options.

Athlon XP processors don't have +5V dependency. They don't have 12V dependency. No processors do. It's on the motherboard what they use to run the CPU and there are a number of not particularly rare boards that use 12V instead of 5.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2024-05-09, 16:35:

Cyberdyne wrote on 2024-05-09, 12:28:

Only problem with P4 rings is high power consumption.

Pentium 4 Northwood and late revisions of Prescott have similar TDP to Athlon/Athlon XP, so it's hardly an issue.

I had an Athlon XP. I would never buy/seek/build an Athlon based retro pc also. 486 to P3 for DOS retro. Late P3 and Atom for XP. Never been into the 9x retro. Maybe because all my old programs and games run just fine in XP. And XP runs just fine in P3 and older P2/Celeron are mainly for pure DOS. And XP has good collection of integrated drivers.

The choice of OS depends on what you want to build and what you want to play, of course.

2k runs pretty snappy in a P5 166+ with 64+ RAM. XP runs pretty snappy in P3 with 256+. Never came across any hardware like that... VXD... what hardware?

Have many comuters with XP in a FAT32 hard drive with integrated dual boot to MS-DOS 7.10. Even one partition.

RandomStranger wrote on 2024-05-09, 17:23:

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-05-09, 16:03:

The P4 also doesn't have the same high +5V dependency that Athlon XP processors do, allowing for more PSU options.

Athlon XP processors don't have +5V dependency. They don't have 12V dependency. No processors do. It's on the motherboard what they use to run the CPU and there are a number of not particularly rare boards that use 12V instead of 5.

That's a fair point. I was thinking along the lines of Athlon boards typically requiring high +5V to power those processors.

If you want universal AGP and/or ISA - yeah, stuck with +5V rail powering everything.

winuser3162 wrote on 2024-05-09, 17:02:

for me as someone who likes to build as period correct as possible, these processors always make it hard for me to decide. i usually go with athlon because i love post 2000 processors.

I've done both. Depending on the use case, they both can certainly do the job.

So far though I've found my current P4 build running on an intel 865G chipset more stable than my previous Athlon XP build.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-05-09, 20:14:

winuser3162 wrote on 2024-05-09, 17:02:

for me as someone who likes to build as period correct as possible, these processors always make it hard for me to decide. i usually go with athlon because i love post 2000 processors.

I've done both. Depending on the use case, they both can certainly do the job.

So far though I've found my current P4 build running on an intel 865G chipset more stable than my previous Athlon XP build.

I have for sure noticed a difference in terms of performance as far as athlon vs p4 goes, i tend to steer away from athlon XP's for some reason, no particular reason honestly. maybe i just don't like the fact that they are named athlon "XP". the last athlon XP i tried to use the die shattered beneath the heatsink upon installation. you have to be so careful in making sure to apply even the pressure out when installing heatsinks and i guess waterblocks if you are going that far since there is no metal heatsink built on top of the die. This has happened twice now actually.

i have a slotted athlon at 950 MHZ but no motherboard to use with it so i have yet to use that processor.

I didn't have a P4 back then, (I have one now, was given it) but I remember reading at the time they were so bad that Intel enthusiasts were using the P3-based Pentium-M laptop processors in desktop motherboards.

Intel i850 with PC/PCI header and a YMF724 has been a pretty good all rounder for me..

i850 with PC/PCI literally has no advantage over a Socket A with an ISA slot.

Some people say RDRAM was worth it.

Yeah, if you have a whole lotta cooling. Otherwise I'd keep far away from it.

And in the context of flexible retro computing: Cedar Mill, if you don't need to particularily run anything past Vista/7 (because in all honesty I don't see any reason to run 10 or 11 on anything less than a Core 2 Quad/Core i3 at a minimum.).

If you need a wider range (98SE/2k/XP/7/10), Core 2 Duo E4600 on a 965 mainboard at best. Don't go further.

PcBytes wrote on 2024-05-10, 15:58:

If you need a wider range (98SE/2k/XP/7/10), Core 2 Duo E4600 on a 965 mainboard at best. Don't go further.

If you need wide range, you need to pick Intel chipsets primarily by a south bridge. 965 is less optimal choice, because it has more modern and less compatible ICH8 chipset. What you need to look for are 975X/G31/P31/G41 motherboards with ICH7. Everything newer and you might as well skip and pick Core i7 X58 board with ICH10, because it doesn't make much difference.