Athlon xp has different quirks depending on the chipset used. No Athlon xp has sse2 which makes web browsing crappy. I like Socket 754 for Athlon 64. Cheaper than 939 and agp boards are more common. Good heatsinks are more common for A64. It uses the same retention bracket from 754 to am3+.

How about a multiplier unlocked dual core Althlon 64, aka FX-60.

I'm curious about any compat issues not running the XP?

For XP? Athlon 64 hands down 😀

Any Athlon 64, including X2 models, will work fine. If you're using a dual-core, do install that AMD dual core optimizer driver.

Knowing how dodgy socket A builds can be I recommend just starting off with a 754 with agp and go from there, dual booting xp and 98 on the same period correct box is nice. The problems with socket A is that the boards can be a pain in the ass for just about any reason one can think of yet the next turd of a board works just fine so that throws people off. The vrms and the need for a strong +5v rail is another thing that catches people off guard as the vrms on most socket a boards really isn't very good coupled with the need for certain power supplies that are slowly becoming an inconvenience to find.

Athlon 64 hands down without a doubt.

No problems that I'm aware of for the CPU, just double check for motherboard compatibility. SIS and VIA 754/939 boards should be extremely cheap and very compatible as should select nVidia boards (not so cheap, though). They also have downward unlocked multipliers for speed flexibility.

Thraka wrote:

I'm curious about any compat issues not running the XP?

The only ones I can think of are that AXP usually requires a PSU with good power on the 5v line (go for 30A or more, but you may find it very hard to find one such PSU in perfect working condition easily) and that at least the boards with VIA chipset have a bug when using SATA stuff on its native SATA controllers (older A64 VIA chipsets had the same bug, except the ones with the VT8237R Plus and newer (you can read a bit about this bug here)).

Also sA does not have any 64-bit compatible CPUs in case you're ever looking for those 😜 And AXP does not support SSE2.

Just keep in mind that AXP is a bit older compared to s754 and s939. There's also s940 but I got no experience with those..

Otoh A64 boards need the plastic bracket for mounting most CPU HSFs and when buying a board this is something to keep in mind when purchasing such a board (s478 is kinda in a similar boat in case its missing its plastic mounting ...thingy). I actually find mounting a HSF on sA a little bit easier compared to s939/s754 but that also may be due to me being completely used to the mounting mechanics of those types of CPU sockets.

Personally I like both platforms for what they are 😀

If you want an easier build, I'd say the A64 platform will be much more of a friend to most people 😀
edit: Overall I'd tend to agree with everything that has been mentioned here so far, it basically sums up the main differences 😜

Regarding CPU cooler, from 754 all the way to AM3+, maybe even AM4, the same coolers should fit. At least the ones that mount onto the retention frame.

So you can go out to a comptuer shop, buy a fancy 4 heatpipe tower cooler, and it will fit onto 754 or 939 😀

I used a tower cooler for all my FX testing, so that does come in very handy.

They're both wrong answers.

The correct answer would be a Pentium 4.

Ampera wrote:

They're both wrong answers.

The correct answer would be a Pentium 4.

Or just use an emulator. Or just play one of those remakes 🤣
Or just use compatibility mode. And even though I do like the s478 platform a lot (when using Northwoods), A64 is still a bit faster.

OP wanted to know the distinction between A64 and AXP and thus that is the answer I have giventh 😁

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Regarding CPU cooler, from 754 all the way to AM3+, maybe even AM4, the same coolers should fit. At least the ones that mount onto the retention frame.

So you can go out to a comptuer shop, buy a fancy 4 heatpipe tower cooler, and it will fit onto 754 or 939 😀

I used a tower cooler for all my FX testing, so that does come in very handy.

True. You can still buy these brand new and it will be a lot easier to find one that you like 😀

I did end up using my A64 rigs more then I did using sA, but I think sA had a charm on its own 😀

Ampera wrote:

They're both wrong answers.

The correct answer would be a Pentium 4.

P4 doesn't have significant (any?) advantages over Athlon64.

Some of the later Pentium 4s are pretty competitive. Either way, it was a joke, and of course as of this time, AMD was the budget performer. They have finally regained the position with Ryzen, but I've grown to like Intel's branding better than AMD's.

TBH, I would go with a high power Athlon XP as I like the range better. Athlon 64 is right on the edge of too new for me, as it's still a somewhat useful chip today for very light applications.

Tetrium wrote:

I did end up using my A64 rigs more then I did using sA, but I think sA had a charm on its own 😀

Yes, totally agree with you 😀

Hoping to do some AMD stuff in the not do distant future!

Well, in my opinion it really depends on what OS you're planning to use. If you go W98, it'd be a shame to not get good DOS support too, and that means you'd want ISA.

My main retro rig is a KT133A/Thoroughbred XP2400+/GF Ti4600/W98SE one, which fits that bill. Never experienced any of the quirkiness mentioned in the thread. It even runs just about everything I throw at it in DOS perfectly, save for some speed sensitive games, for which I have slower machines anyways.

Windows XP itself would probably work just fine on it, but since it really doesn't have the horsepower for other than the earlier XP games, it's practical usefulness would be quite limited, especially so when you factor in that you'd might want to play the games in resolutions we only dreamt about back then. If you want XP, then go Athlon64, or better, something more recent.

kaputnik wrote:

Well, in my opinion it really depends on what OS you're planning to use. If you go W98, it'd be a shame to not get good DOS support too, and that means you'd want ISA.

In my opinion, this involves too many compromises resulting in a machine that is not overly compatible in DOS with significant holes in the performance envelope and quite a bit less performance than might otherwise be possible in Win98.

Ampera wrote:

They have finally regained the position with Ryzen

I think it's like ¬1998 now, where AMDs K6-2 is performing on-par with Intels much more expensive PII, except when it comes to games.

No, K6-2 was never a true performance leader in any category.

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

For XP? Athlon 64 hands down 😀

Any Athlon 64, including X2 models, will work fine. If you're using a dual-core, do install that AMD dual core optimizer driver.

Sorry, I meant compat issues between the processor types, the AthlonXP vs Athlon64. Is there a reason to ever use the AthlonXP?

Ampera wrote:

They're both wrong answers.

The correct answer would be a Pentium 4.

I tried that route. It was way too hard to get W98 drivers working or even installed. AMD stuff however is super easy to get W98 support