Jo22 wrote:

I guess from our modern point of view, 286 PCs with 16bit cards must really look like a total overkill and ridiculous. 🤣
But back in the 90s it wasn't uncommon at all. People bought these cards for their old PCs because they were part of a "multimedia upgrade kit",
which contained a CD-ROM drive and an interface card (often a sound card). Some even had free speakers inside! Free speakers! Yoo-hoo! 😁

The 286 had a 16-bit data path & 16-bit bus, why *wouldn't* you use it? When it was around 16-bit memory cards & HDD interfaces were hot shit.

computergeek92 wrote:

Pentium 4 1.3 or Celery 766... I don't know which is worse. […]
Show full quote

Pentium 4 1.3 or Celery 766... I don't know which is worse.

I'd say try jerry rigging itto an old FX board with SIMM memory and see just how horrible it can be...

(Talkin about the 766)

As for the 423 Willametes, theres simply no words to describe how crummy they are! HAHA

TBH one of my favorite systems for wide-range gaming (DOS to XP) is built around a socket 423 motherboard. It has a 1.7GHz processor, true, not a 1.3GHz one. But it's extremely versatile. Doesn't have ISA, but has PC/PCI and works well for legacy sound with both a YMF724 card and a ESS Solo-1. I use a GF7800GS with it. I'm quite fond of this system. It was actually the first P4 system I ever built, and this was over this summer. 😀 (at the historical time of the P4, I was firmly in the AMD camp for my main system; didn't have an Intel-based computer between a Celeron300A and a i7-2600K)

Jo22 wrote:

Nah, that's fine. DOS 4.0 was considered the "Windows ME of DOS" after all, so it does fit well here.
And yes, it is ridiculous - you could also use a Hercules card instead and and run Windows 3.0 in CGA mode with SIMCGA (does that work ?)

Ho ho, I'm going to have to try that in DOSBox.

Jo22 wrote:

Good Luck! There's an emulator named EMU386 that claims to support the AWEs. I have added it to this post for you.
It works with all real address mode software for the 386 (it says so).

Hey, cool! Thanks! This is very interesting. In fact, it could be very useful as I have some software that uses 386 instructions that I'd like to run on a 286; maybe this will work!

xjas wrote:

The 286 had a 16-bit data path & 16-bit bus, why *wouldn't* you use it? When it was around 16-bit memory cards & HDD interfaces were hot shit.

Because most software that took advantage of extended capabilities of 16-bit cards ran rather slow on a 286, right?
At least, a lot of games that support 16-bit sound don't run well on a 286, even real mode stuff.

clueless1 wrote:

The Celeron D series on LGA775 is surprisingly slow. 3+Ghz feels like a Pentium with caches disabled.

The older PGA 478 Celerons (excluding Celeron Ds) were much worse, Celeron D is somewhat more decent

Celeron D = Pentium 4 Willamette cache with 533MHz FSB and Prescott core.
*Excluding Celeron D 347, 352, 356, 360, 365 which after OC can rekt most Northwood CPU's 😉

As to performance :
They (Celeron D's with 256kB L2), are great at bottlenecking... everything 😀
3DMark 06 : 2733 pkt. (LINK)
3DMark 06 3360:2100 + MSAA x8 + AF x16 : 2771 pkt. (LINK)
Why ?
Cause GPU isn't even working on 3D clocks in most of the tests from former run 😁

agent_x007 wrote:

Celeron D = Pentium 4 Willamette cache with 533MHz FSB and Prescott core.
*Excluding Celeron D 347, 352, 356, 360, 365 which after OC can rekt most Northwood CPU's 😉

Well, i once tried comapring a Celeron D 352 agaist a Northwood P4 3.2 GHz and it seems to have worse clock per clock than Northwood, even with HT disabled

Carlos S. M. wrote:

agent_x007 wrote:

Celeron D = Pentium 4 Willamette cache with 533MHz FSB and Prescott core.
*Excluding Celeron D 347, 352, 356, 360, 365 which after OC can rekt most Northwood CPU's 😉

Well, i once tried comapring a Celeron D 352 agaist a Northwood P4 3.2 GHz and it seems to have worse clock per clock than Northwood, even with HT disabled

True, but I bet you didn't overclock'em 😉
Good luck beating this puppy with Northwood : LINK

Carlos S. M. wrote:

clueless1 wrote:

The Celeron D series on LGA775 is surprisingly slow. 3+Ghz feels like a Pentium with caches disabled.

The older PGA 478 Celerons (excluding Celeron Ds) were much worse, Celeron D is somewhat more decent

Yeah, but I expect slower performance from a 478. We're talking a legendary LGA775 cpu. And 3.5ish Ghz. Imagine the poor folks who thought they were getting a speed demon when they first bought a system with one of these. 🤣.

agent_x007 wrote:

Carlos S. M. wrote:

agent_x007 wrote:

Celeron D = Pentium 4 Willamette cache with 533MHz FSB and Prescott core.
*Excluding Celeron D 347, 352, 356, 360, 365 which after OC can rekt most Northwood CPU's 😉

Well, i once tried comapring a Celeron D 352 agaist a Northwood P4 3.2 GHz and it seems to have worse clock per clock than Northwood, even with HT disabled

True, but I bet you didn't overclock'em 😉
Good luck beating this puppy with Northwood : LINK

Well, i don't think that is possible unless i have a crazy mobo and LN2, but i only compared at base clocks.

I have like 3-4 Celeron 352s laying around here and some Prescott Celeron Ds (331, 336, 346, 355)

btw. Your crazy OC'd Celeron D scored better than my dual core Atom D525 on Windows 7 WEI (4.9 vs 3.5)

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Interesting, though I always find something good in a part, even if it's bad. Like an OAK ISA graphics card. Slow as heck, but if you want to play Wing Commander on a 486, that card does the trick 😀

I wouldn't take the piss on OAK cards. Yes they're slow, but provide decent CGA and EGA emulation and usually are great cards to pair with a Turbo XT or slow 286 and you want to have good RBG CGA compatibility. Plus their output quality is not worse than the Tridents.

But anything lower than 386 is not your cup of tea so from your POV i understand why you say this.

Carlos S. M. wrote:

btw. Your crazy OC'd Celeron D scored better than my dual core Atom D525 on Windows 7 WEI (4.9 vs 3.5)

Seriosly ?
Dual Core with HT is that much slower than my OC'd Celeron D ?
Wow... maybe In-order Atoms (basicly : a pre-PentiumPro idea with new twist), should be added to worst CPUs ever created list ?
Source : LINK

How about a matx Skywell i5 build, one of the models w/o IGP (s?) 1tb ssd, 64gb of ddr4! . . .and have a pci Matrox g450 running Windows 7? Because there are proper Windows drivers for it.

keenmaster486 wrote:

386DX with a CGA card and an AWE64, running MS-DOS 4.0 on XT-IDE with a 128GB CF card, divided into 64 2GB partitions.

Just so you know you're not limited to 2 or 32gb partitions, use DOS from 98se, FAT32, and format beyond 32GB limit with a more recent utility:

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and- … ond-32gb-limit/
http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/index.htm?guiformat.htm

http://macrorit.com/partition-magic-manager/2 … -formatter.html

@awgamer: I know, I was just trying to list off the silliest build I could think of. Thanks for the tip though!

Edit: I've formatted 40GB hard drives with DOS 7.1 though - what's the 32GB limit then? I didn't know it existed.

Some socket 478 celerons - those things sucked big time. A friend of mine had a 2.2Ghz cellery with 128kb of cache that felt a lot slower then my (then) XP 1800+. It was also a pain in the neck trying to get one of those setups to run decently when I had to install windows on one. To make it worse, they usually used low budget mainboards as well - the worst of witch had no AGP slot, shitty CPU power circuitry, limited expansion options and so on.

There's also some wierd PCChips boards with a soldered CPU - some were based on the AMD Duron - usually 800 or 1200mhz parts, others on the socket 370 celeron - this in 2002-2003! SDRAM, no AGP slot.... I had to install winXP on those things...

K6 / Pentium II / slow Pentium III rigs with 256mb of ram running windows XP in 2001-2002 - I saw a lot of these back in the day. They came into the shop I worked at part time and people insisted on installing XP on them. Some listned to reason and went with 98 or upgraded to a faster machine, while others continued with their madness. I remember it took for ever to install XP on one of those...

Budget laptops... modern machines you can pick up for 200$ - they come with some shitty pentium / celeron dual-core, clocked at a "speedy" 1.8ghz, or some dual core AMD APU. 2Gb of DDR3, some soldered with no expansion slots, some with one populated expansion slot - single channel 64 bit only (and trust me, dual channel can make a big difference in older machines, especially ones with on board video), 5400rpm hdd, poor quality lo res screen with a glossy finish you can see your face in and horrible washed out colors - god I hate these things - and a lot of people buy them in my country - A LOT!

I have a literal stack of 478 celerons. Most of witch are 2.9ghz Celeron D's, one has 128kb cache at 1.7ghz 0.o

kanecvr wrote:

Northwood celerons - those things sucked big time. A friend of mine had a 2.2Ghz cellery with 128kb of cache that felt a lot slower then my (then) XP 1800+. It was also a pain in the neck trying to get one of those setups to run decently when I had to install windows on one. To make it worse, they usually used low budget mainboards as well - the worst of witch had no AGP slot, shitty CPU power circuitry, limited expansion options and so on.

There's also some wierd PCChips boards with a soldered CPU - some were based on the AMD Duron - usually 800 or 1200mhz parts, others on the socket 370 celeron - this in 2002-2003! SDRAM, no AGP slot.... I had to install winXP on those things...

Budget laptops... modern machines you can pick up for 200$ - they come with some shitty pentium / celeron dual-core, clocked at a "speedy" 1.8ghz, or some dual core AMD APU. 2Gb of DDR3, some soldered with no expansion slots, some with one populated expansion slot - single channel 64 bit only (and trust me, dual channel can make a big difference in older machines, especially ones with on board video), 5400rpm hdd, poor quality lo res screen with a glossy finish you can see your face in and horrible washed out colors - god I hate these things - and a lot of people buy them in my country - A LOT!

Well. I have a friend wirh these kins of laptop (Pentium N3700 to be exact) we tried running passmark perfomance test and it's single were considerably worse than my 11 year old Pentium 4 670, athough in multithread, it considerably surpasses my P4 only when all cores were uses. To make things worse. Any Northwood/Prescott P4 at 2.8(?) Ghz or more (Athlon XP at 2(?) ghz/Athlon 64 at 1.8(?) GHz or faster) can outperform any of the current Bay-Trail/Braswell Atom based Pentium/Celerons in single threading,or even seeing these kind of laptops begin more expensive than laptops equiped with much faster UlV i3s like 4005U or 5005U. Also my main rig (i5 2500K OC) with only 1 core can beat one of these CPUs.

Another thing ia there desktops with the same kind of CPUs here like low end AMD APus or the same Pentium/Celerons which in the practice. The slowest Haswell based Celeron (G1820) which is only 38 € here is considerably faster. So to sum up

H81 mobo + G1820 = ~85 €
Pentium N3700 mobo = ~ 110 €

(the prices are from my region, it can vary depending od region/country)

Despite it's low performance of these Atom based CPUs. The only good part are the low power consumption which makes ideal for some systems. But i kinda agree, that is kinda pointless for full sized notebooks, maybe only for ITX, small notebooks (13 inch or lower), very low power builds, NAS...

ODwilly wrote:

I have a literal stack of 478 celerons. Most of witch are 2.9ghz Celeron D's, one has 128kb cache at 1.7ghz 0.o

I have many Celerons as well. Several PGA 478 Celeron Ds and some older Celerons, i have a 2.6 Ghz Celeron with only 128 KB L2
I have also many LGA 775 Celeron Ds and some Celeron 400 series.

But nothing in my CPU collection beats my litteral stack of +100 Pentium 4s xD

keenmaster486 wrote:

@awgamer: I know, I was just trying to list off the silliest build I could think of. Thanks for the tip though!

Edit: I've formatted 40GB hard drives with DOS 7.1 though - what's the 32GB limit then? I didn't know it existed.

There no 32 GB limit in FAT32. The 32 GB limit was imposed on Windows 2000 and newer which doesn't let format partitons larger than 32 GB in FAT without 3rd party programs.

Also some earlier versions of FDISK with FAT32 support doesn't recorgnize HDDs larger than 64 GB as i heard

FreeDOS can format FAT32 parts up to 2TB. I had a 160GB drive in a DOS machine for a while.