GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-07, 05:50:

Hello :) […]
Show full quote

Hello 😀

I've got a question about processor Pentium3.

When I was young I dreamed of a Pc with P3. I had P2. And now i wanna building retro Pc based on P3 processor.
I don't like Win98 because It reminds me of the nightmare of blue screens. Therefore I want to use WinXp. I know that better option for Xp gaming is Core2Duo or i5 secend generation but I care about a specific processor model : Pentium 3.

I dream of going into the properties of "my computer" and seeing the words "Pentium 3". I consider buying a P3 processor in the 500-866 (mhz) range. I noticed that the P3 500mhz has a built-in cooling system, which would be a big help. I don't know what motherboard to look for for the Pentium3 processor. Google won't tell you which ones are recommended. Is it true that Win98 is not compatible with USB 2.0? And to use USB 1.0 do you first need to install the appropriate drivers?

The main question is how bad or good Windows Xp will be work?

its been years since i've had a pentium 3, the first had katmai slot1 cpus which look like a cartridge, the later were socket 370's which used coppermine cpu's which are fairly cheap on ebay at the moment and widely available they seem to be in the 500-1000mhz range, if your going for XP then the higher the better, if you want a higher powered cpu then you'll want a tualatin which go up to 1.4ghz, these are what most people want but they are expensive, ive been looking for a 370 pentium 3 cpu for a board i have that im planning on using for win3.1/dos/95 so dont need the maximum amount of power, im thinking in the 500-700mhz range and coppermine cpu's start at about £10 while tualatins are up to £80. make sure what ever you choose has an agp slot for better choice of gpu, if you can also find one with an ISA slot for sound card it would be better for dos/98, if not a pci sound card like a sound blaster live with a CT model number works great.

for usb on 98 you will need drivers like nusb33/nusb36 for using usb drives, speeds will be slow but good enough for transfering files.

XP works just fine on a Pentium 3, should even work ok on a P2 but ram might be a bit limiting there. I run XP on my P3 Slot 1 1Ghz rig in a dual boot config with 98 and have had zero issues with it.

I'd say XP runs very fine as long as you don't go pass SP1, and you have 256/512MB of ram.

In my opinion, SP2&3 is what overload older systems.
Back in the day it was kind of needed to keep the system 'secure' in the Internet and so, but for retro gaming, I'd say completely skip them for older systems.

For me, Windows 2000 SP4 is the 'best' OS for non ultimate P3s 😀

XP runs buttersmooth with a nice P3 just give it good amount of RAM. I use it with P3 800 with 512MB dual booted it with DOS.

GreenBook wrote on 2024-09-07, 05:50:

I don't know what motherboard to look for for the Pentium3 processor. Google won't tell you which ones are recommended.

Look at the chipset.
For top-notch stock performance, go for SiS 635T or Intel 440BX.
For unholy amounts of RAM, go for the Via Apollo Pro 133A, 133T or 266(T).
For a system that "just works", or will be overclocked hard, go for Intel 815.

Is it true that Win98 is not compatible with USB 2.0? And to use USB 1.0 do you first need to install the appropriate drivers?

No and no. Windows 98 supports USB 1 input devices out of the box. On 98 SE, support for USB 2.0, including mass storage, can be added using NUSB; that said, it always just broke Explorer every time I installed it. Maybe you'll have better luck.

The main question is how bad or good Windows Xp will be work?

I have Windows XP installed on my Pentium III 866. It works pretty well.
Make sure the system has at least 256 MiB of RAM and a decent video card. A Riva TNT2 M64 won't cut it.

mmx_91 wrote on 2024-09-07, 07:16:

In my opinion, SP2&3 is what overload older systems.
Back in the day it was kind of needed to keep the system 'secure' in the Internet and so, but for retro gaming, I'd say completely skip them for older systems.

Service Pack 3 hits the RAM harder than anything else; however, 256 MiB should be enough depending on the workload. There is also zero reason to run XP with an old service pack over Windows 2000 – the software compatibility just isn't there yet.

When i was young, long time ago, I had exactly this:
A compaq Deskpro, i815 chipset, P3-800, 64MB Ram and 20GB HDD. Not sure which graphics card, but probably a TNT2 M64. 8 upgraded from ok running W98SE to XP sp2.

It ran sooooooo slow.....

Later I got 2x 256MB ram and... It suddenly was a sneaky snappy system because the excessive swapping was over. I could run some more demanding games like GTA 3 all of a sudden. Low Res 640x480 because of the basic graphics card of course.

After that I went to an Athlon XP 2800+ system, which is in another League.

So XP on the P3: go for it and make sure you have lots of ram. 512MB at least, maybe even 1GB if you have it or can buy for cheap.

As for motherboards: any will do, but keep away from PC Chips. I like A open and Asus board with the 440BX chipset most. They are a bit more tricky to set up with an fsb133MHz cpu, because it was designed for the P2 but actually it's slightly faster than an i815 board (Asus P3B-f vs CUSL2).

If your aim is just looking at XP doing some desktop stuff at leasure pace then any above average Pentium 3 system will do. If you want XP to perform reasonably well then you better invest in a higher end solution. XP SP2 is for example doing fine on this pc:
ASUS P3V4X rev:1.02 (VIA Apollo Pro 133 A - BIOS version 1006-004 beta)
Intel PIII 1Ghz/133 SECC
4x 512Mb PC133 SDRAM Kingston
Seagate 150GB UDMA 5 - dualboot Windows XP / ME
MSI Geforce 4 ti4200 64Mb

GemCookie wrote on 2024-09-07, 07:38:

Make sure the system has at least 256 MiB of RAM and a decent video card. A Riva TNT2 M64 won't cut it.

🤣 i plan on using a riva tnt2 m64 ive got lying around for my socket 370 when i find a cpu for it, not for its performance only for its win 3.1 compatibility.

waterbeesje wrote on 2024-09-07, 08:11:

When i was young, long time ago, I had exactly this:
A compaq Deskpro, i815 chipset, P3-800, 64MB Ram and 20GB HDD. Not sure which graphics card, but probably a TNT2 M64. 8 upgraded from ok running W98SE to XP sp2.

i also owned a compaq deskpro back in 2004/5, that was the last pentium 3 i remember owning, i forget the specs but at the time it ran m.e that i upgraded to xp pro, all i really used it for was rpg maker and zsnes and kgen, it worked well enough.

Oops... wrong user!

GemCookie wrote on 2024-09-07, 12:05:

DudeFace wrote on 2024-09-07, 09:58:

GemCookie wrote on 2024-09-07, 07:38:

Make sure the system has at least 256 MiB of RAM and a decent video card. A Riva TNT2 M64 won't cut it.

🤣 i plan on using a riva tnt2 m64 ive got lying around for my socket 370 when i find a cpu for it, not for its performance only for its win 3.1 compatibility.

By "won't cut it", I mean you'll actually see the screen redrawing.

A TNT2 M64 should be fine in non-3D accelerated applications...

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-07, 12:28:

A TNT2 M64 should be fine in non-3D accelerated applications...

At 1024×768, it probably is. At my usual resolution of 1600×1200, it chugs. Upgrading to a regular TNT2 made Nestopia and PCem run a lot better on my Pentium III.

Okay, so, to address the big questions, as others have said:
1) XP will run fine on a PIII. My dad ran XP for... 2-3 years... on my Dell PIII 700.
2) The XP era extends to 2014. Any software, particularly games, from after about 2003-4, if not a teeny bit earlier, will struggle on a PIII.
3) Feed XP lots of RAM. That's true of Win2000 and probably every NT-based OS ever, but XP's additional interface prettiness guzzles more RAM. So, 512 megs of RAM for an i815, 768MB for 440BX. If you could feed it more RAM that would be even better, but I don't think it's particularly easy to go above 768MB on a PIII platform.
4) In terms of acquiring the PIII, if you don't care about DOS gaming and ISA sound cards, i815/socket 370 stuff is significantly cheaper and more plentiful than 440BX/slot 1. Especially in the higher-MHz flavours. If you don't mind Dell's proprietary PSU pinout, you can pick up nice Dell Dimension 4100s all day long on eBay...

I would echo what others have said - if you want a PIII for the sake of it being a PIII, run Win2000. If you want a PIII for late 1990s games, run 98SE (and believe me, you are preaching to the choir on 98SE's poor stability... still have the trauma from 24 years ago. But guess what, you're not going to be multitasking on a retro system). If you want a functional XP system to run XP-era software, get a C2D/Q or an Ivy Bridge.

(P.S. Core 2s use the same family ID as PIIIs, no?)

GemCookie wrote on 2024-09-07, 12:39:

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-07, 12:28:

A TNT2 M64 should be fine in non-3D accelerated applications...

At 1024×768, it probably is. At my usual resolution of 1600×1200, it chugs. Upgrading to a regular TNT2 made Nestopia and PCem run a lot better on my Pentium III.

I had a TNT2 M64 back in the day and was perfectly happy with it (let's just say I had a budget and invested more in other things and had to make some sacrifices somewhere). Ran 1280x1024 on a 19" CRT for the Windows desktop and non-3D games (CivIII, AoE2, etc), it was... perfectly fine. I think the teeny bit of 3D gaming (UT!) I did with it was at 1024x768, not sure what detail settings.

(Honestly when you're coming from an IBM-nee-Acer Aptiva with lousy ATI Rage II+ soldered that doesn't even have passable drivers, the TNT2 M64 felt like a Cadillac...)

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-07, 12:40:

Okay, so, to address the big questions, as others have said: 1) XP will run fine on a PIII. My dad ran XP for... 2-3 years... on […]
Show full quote

Okay, so, to address the big questions, as others have said:
1) XP will run fine on a PIII. My dad ran XP for... 2-3 years... on my Dell PIII 700.
2) The XP era extends to 2014. Any software, particularly games, from after about 2003-4, if not a teeny bit earlier, will struggle on a PIII.
3) Feed XP lots of RAM. That's true of Win2000 and probably every NT-based OS ever, but XP's additional interface prettiness guzzles more RAM. So, 512 megs of RAM for an i815, 768MB for 440BX. If you could feed it more RAM that would be even better, but I don't think it's particularly easy to go above 768MB on a PIII platform.
4) In terms of acquiring the PIII, if you don't care about DOS gaming and ISA sound cards, i815/socket 370 stuff is significantly cheaper and more plentiful than 440BX/slot 1. Especially in the higher-MHz flavours. If you don't mind Dell's proprietary PSU pinout, you can pick up nice Dell Dimension 4100s all day long on eBay...

I would echo what others have said - if you want a PIII for the sake of it being a PIII, run Win2000. If you want a PIII for late 1990s games, run 98SE (and believe me, you are preaching to the choir on 98SE's poor stability... still have the trauma from 24 years ago. But guess what, you're not going to be multitasking on a retro system). If you want a functional XP system to run XP-era software, get a C2D/Q or an Ivy Bridge.

(P.S. Core 2s use the same family ID as PIIIs, no?)

Family 6/7,8,10,11 for Pentium 3

Family 6/9,13 for Pentium M
Family 6/14 for Core
Family 6/15 for Core2

These last three are all the same CPU core based on the Tualatin, its the same family as the Pentium Pro and Pentium II as well. The Pentium 4 is Family ID 15/0 and is weirdly in the same family as Itanium 2 which is 15/1,2 not sure why the pentium 4 shares a family with Itanium 2

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-09-07, 13:23:

These last three are all the same CPU core based on the Tualatin, its the same family as the Pentium Pro and Pentium II as well. The Pentium 4 is Family ID 15/0 and is weirdly in the same family as Itanium 2 which is 15/1,2 not sure why the pentium 4 shares a family with Itanium 2

There's a weird story about how the P4 had to be family 15 because in binary, that works out to something that would work with how NT4 did some kind of check. But that doesn't explain why Itanium would have the same issue...

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-07, 13:30:

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-09-07, 13:23:

These last three are all the same CPU core based on the Tualatin, its the same family as the Pentium Pro and Pentium II as well. The Pentium 4 is Family ID 15/0 and is weirdly in the same family as Itanium 2 which is 15/1,2 not sure why the pentium 4 shares a family with Itanium 2

There's a weird story about how the P4 had to be family 15 because in binary, that works out to something that would work with how NT4 did some kind of check. But that doesn't explain why Itanium would have the same issue...

I did a bit of digging cause I was curious, and its because the CPUID is only 4 bits wide so 15 is the highest number that can be represented, no idea if its still only 4 bits wide in CPUs made after Core2 but they would have ran out of family IDs if they had left it only 4bits, Perhaps they used a different way to set CPUIDs.

This still doesnt explain why Itanium 2 had to use 15 too . there were a few free numbers they could have used, Itanium 1 was Family 7 so Itanium 2 should have been Family 8 ...more Intel weirdness.

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-09-07, 13:34:

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-07, 13:30:

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-09-07, 13:23:

These last three are all the same CPU core based on the Tualatin, its the same family as the Pentium Pro and Pentium II as well. The Pentium 4 is Family ID 15/0 and is weirdly in the same family as Itanium 2 which is 15/1,2 not sure why the pentium 4 shares a family with Itanium 2

There's a weird story about how the P4 had to be family 15 because in binary, that works out to something that would work with how NT4 did some kind of check. But that doesn't explain why Itanium would have the same issue...

I did a bit of digging cause I was curious, and its because the CPUID is only 4 bits wide so 15 is the highest number that can be represented, no idea if its still only 4 bits wide in CPUs made after Core2 but they would have ran out of family IDs if they had left it only 4bits, Perhaps they used a different way to set CPUIDs.

This still doesnt explain why Itanium 2 had to use 15 too . there were a few free numbers they could have used, Itanium 1 was Family 7 so Itanium 2 should have been Family 8 ...more Intel weirdness.

Have you looked into that history with NT4? Family 8 would be 1000 in binary and... some things that only look at 3 bits might be very unhappy with that. I think that's why they picked 15 (1111) for P4, that way NT4 looking at 3 bits would see 111 and be happy.

But I guess that doesn't explain whose code on Itanium had these limitations? Just because 8 was bad for x86 doesn't explain why 8 is bad for IA-64...

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-07, 13:45:

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-09-07, 13:34:

VivienM wrote on 2024-09-07, 13:30:

There's a weird story about how the P4 had to be family 15 because in binary, that works out to something that would work with how NT4 did some kind of check. But that doesn't explain why Itanium would have the same issue...

I did a bit of digging cause I was curious, and its because the CPUID is only 4 bits wide so 15 is the highest number that can be represented, no idea if its still only 4 bits wide in CPUs made after Core2 but they would have ran out of family IDs if they had left it only 4bits, Perhaps they used a different way to set CPUIDs.

This still doesnt explain why Itanium 2 had to use 15 too . there were a few free numbers they could have used, Itanium 1 was Family 7 so Itanium 2 should have been Family 8 ...more Intel weirdness.

Have you looked into that history with NT4? Family 8 would be 1000 in binary and... some things that only look at 3 bits might be very unhappy with that. I think that's why they picked 15 (1111) for P4, that way NT4 looking at 3 bits would see 111 and be happy.

But I guess that doesn't explain whose code on Itanium had these limitations? Just because 8 was bad for x86 doesn't explain why 8 is bad for IA-64...

I'm sitting here laughing at the stupidity of this ...though this is Microsoft here so it doesn't surprise me they couldnt have found an elegant work around for it.

As for Itanium ...best we forget it existed, it bombed so hard even Intel refuses to acknowledge it exists and that's very telling.

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-09-07, 13:50:

I'm sitting here laughing at the stupidity of this ...though this is Microsoft here so it doesn't surprise me they couldnt have found an elegant work around for it.

Well, it's Microsoft's bug and Intel did find an elegant workaround - they made their P4 Family 15 and boom, problem worked around.

I think the only way for Microsoft to fix it would have been to release new installation media for NT4, which... they probably didn't want to do, especially in late 2000 when NT4 was half-obsoleted and half-thriving.

(For those unfamiliar with this mess, https://blog.codinghorror.com/nasty-software- … d-intels-cpuid/ explains it nicely.)

(This also reminds me of all the 98SE limitations that we now know about, e.g. the 512 meg of RAM issue. No one in 2000-2001 when you could start to get 512 megs of RAM seemed to talk about it...then again, you'd have to be insane to run 98SE on 128+ megs of RAM back in the day.)