VOGONS


Childhood deficiencies

Topic actions

Reply 60 of 135, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
rasz_pl wrote on 2024-10-02, 02:58:
VivienM wrote on 2024-10-02, 01:48:

Those are low-end chipsets...

Not when compared to 965. What exactly are you missing? and how much will scoring top of the line board cost?

I didn't check those boards, but isn't G41 typically paired with ICH7? That's lacking a whole bunch of things compared to the ICH10 that a 4-series chipset should be paired with.

My view would be relatively simple - get the decent chipset for each generation. P965, P35, P43/P45, etc, then at some point P turned into Z...

Reply 61 of 135, by rasz_pl

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
VivienM wrote on 2024-10-03, 00:23:

I didn't check those boards, but isn't G41 typically paired with ICH7? That's lacking a whole bunch of things compared to the ICH10 that a 4-series chipset should be paired with.

"whole bunch of things" are OC and upselling on number of IO/expansion options.
Very important to people who want to eek the last couple % of speed from maxed config, but does this really matter for playing XP era games?

https://github.com/raszpl/FIC-486-GAC-2-Cache-Module for AT&T Globalyst
https://github.com/raszpl/386RC-16 memory board
https://github.com/raszpl/440BX Reference Design adapted to Kicad
https://github.com/raszpl/Zenith_ZBIOS MFM-300 Monitor

Reply 62 of 135, by dormcat

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-02, 09:57:

I didn't know motherboards could be high and low end. Does lowend motherboard is bottleneck for cpu? Does easier is buy cheap good motherboards for L775 or socket 1155?

If they're all the same, why do they have different prices then? 😉

Checking Coolpc's website for LGA 1700 motherboards, they've got cheapest MSI PRO H610M-E DDR4 for NT$2290 (US$71.56) and most expensive Gigabyte Z790 AORUS XTREME X for NT$24990 (US$780.94). That's a price difference by a digit.

Better motherboards have better chipsets (that offers higher RAM speed and capacity, more devices and connectors like PCIe lanes, M.2, USB, etc. in turn), more features, more tolerance to environment i.e. overclocking, better polymer capacitors and voltage regulator modules (VRM), etc.

Reply 64 of 135, by swaaye

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Does PLATINUM sound low end?

If your dream nostalgia machine was a 2005 box, why go to Core 2? If you want faster, why not buy something like a Core i7 4770? Why stop there? Why not just use whatever you have now?

Reply 65 of 135, by dormcat

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
swaaye wrote on 2024-10-03, 13:05:

If your dream nostalgia machine was a 2005 box, why go to Core 2? If you want faster, why not buy something like a Core i7 4770? Why stop there? Why not just use whatever you have now?

IMHO OP has difficulties 1) deciding whether to build a system of 2005 or a system for 2005 games, and 2) telling apart components of old and new, budget or flagship, etc., otherwise wouldn't show distrust on C2D while praising AthlonXP. I'd guess the OP had few, if any, experience of buying separate components (MB, CPU, RAM, GPU, Sound, NIC, HDD, ODD, SSD, PSU, chassis......) and put them together into a complete system.

@Kocyk: Keep tossing out vague questions like "Is [make/model 1] good? Is [make/model 2] good? Which is better?" won't help, especially under the circumstance that you can't even decide to build

  1. a strict "time machine" that every component must be available by by June 2005, or
  2. a loosely period-correct system with upgrades within 1-2 years of game release, or
  3. the fastest system possible without compatibility problems.

Make up your mind, list your budget range and components you currently own, before others could provide assistance.

Reply 66 of 135, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
rasz_pl wrote on 2024-10-03, 02:52:
VivienM wrote on 2024-10-03, 00:23:

I didn't check those boards, but isn't G41 typically paired with ICH7? That's lacking a whole bunch of things compared to the ICH10 that a 4-series chipset should be paired with.

"whole bunch of things" are OC and upselling on number of IO/expansion options.
Very important to people who want to eek the last couple % of speed from maxed config, but does this really matter for playing XP era games?

But I would flip that around and say... we're now in retroland. If you can get a P43/P45/ICH10R board for $5 more than the price of a G41/ICH7 board, and your retro goals don't require/benefit from something that was dropped between ICH7 and ICH10, why wouldn't you get the higher end chipset?

(And I admit that I have never shopped for late C2 boards as retro items, in part because I still own a P43/ICH10R board I bought back in the day, but... I didn't have the impression P43/P45 boards, or really any LGA775 boards other than C2-capable i865 boards, were a particularly hot commodity in the retro market at this point in time.)

Reply 67 of 135, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-03, 12:57:

What do you think about MSI P965 PLATINUM DDR2 775 ATX or IGABYTE GA-8P965UBH-RH 1.0 or Gigabyte GA-P35C-DS3R or MSI G31TM-P35?

Are they low or high end motherboards ?

Out of all these motherboards, I would say the GA-P35C-DS3R is in a class of its own. P35/ICH9R so that's the highest-end chipset of that generation. It's a generation newer than the P965s which guarantees you 45nm C2 and 1333MHz FSB support.

The only thing I find weird about it is the memory setup: it is a board with both DDR2 and DDR3 (which is in itself interesting and harkens back to the EDO/SDRAM combo Taiwanese boards of the late Pentium era). Note that those boards let you pick - either DDR2 or DDR3, you can't mix both. Four slots of DDR2 advertised for a maximum of 8GB, which seems right... and two slots of DDR3 for a maximum of 4GB, which is what seems odd. Up to 8GB DDR3 DIMMs are plentiful, but I have no idea if the P35 chipset would support 2x8GB DDR3... or even 2x4GB.

Realistically, for an XP system, it doesn't matter - 4GB of RAM is your maximum. If you want to dual boot Vista/7/10 or even pre-24H2 11 unofficially, though, a DDR3-only board that can go to 16GB of memory would open some additional possibilities.

Reply 68 of 135, by Kocyk

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

@Dormcat

You have the right.

I remember the summer of 2005 like it was yesterday. Back then I was using an outdated computer. All my friends had Pentium4 and AthlonXp. For this reason, I remember Athlon Xp as a powerful PC, but I know that lowend C2D is much better than even the best Athlon Xp.

Thats correct I didn't experience of buying separate components (MB, CPU, RAM, GPU, Sound, NIC, HDD, ODD, SSD, PSU, chassis......) and put them together into a complete system. I only changed in laptops hdd to ssd and added ram memory.

When I started the topic I wanted build retro pc from 2005, but you convinced me to C2D or i5 2gen.

For sure my target is graphic card GF750ti. I don't know which of these processors has better compatibility and whether C2D E8400/E8500 is powerful enough.

Reply 69 of 135, by Shponglefan

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
dormcat wrote on 2024-10-03, 20:50:

IMHO OP has difficulties 1) deciding whether to build a system of 2005 or a system for 2005 games, and 2) telling apart components of old and new, budget or flagship, etc., otherwise wouldn't show distrust on C2D while praising AthlonXP. I'd guess the OP had few, if any, experience of buying separate components (MB, CPU, RAM, GPU, Sound, NIC, HDD, ODD, SSD, PSU, chassis......) and put them together into a complete system.

In fairness to the OP, the 2000s was when PC specs started to get really confusing.

The 90s were generally straight-forward. Processors used actual speeds to delineate models, faster processors were better, and there was a clearer progression in model numbers and performance.

But in the 2000s, model numbers became confusing and processor speed was no longer a reliable indicator of performance.

I can only imagine how confusing it could be trying to sift through all the different makes and models, especially if one didn't have previous experience building systems from that era.

Pentium 4 Multi-OS Build
486 DX4-100 with 6 sound cards
486 DX-33 with 5 sound cards

Reply 70 of 135, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-03, 22:32:
In fairness to the OP, the 2000s was when PC specs started to get really confusing. […]
Show full quote
dormcat wrote on 2024-10-03, 20:50:

IMHO OP has difficulties 1) deciding whether to build a system of 2005 or a system for 2005 games, and 2) telling apart components of old and new, budget or flagship, etc., otherwise wouldn't show distrust on C2D while praising AthlonXP. I'd guess the OP had few, if any, experience of buying separate components (MB, CPU, RAM, GPU, Sound, NIC, HDD, ODD, SSD, PSU, chassis......) and put them together into a complete system.

In fairness to the OP, the 2000s was when PC specs started to get really confusing.

The 90s were generally straight-forward. Processors used actual speeds to delineate models, faster processors were better, and there was a clearer progression in model numbers and performance.

But in the 2000s, model numbers became confusing and processor speed was no longer a reliable indicator of performance.

I can only imagine how confusing it could be trying to sift through all the different makes and models, especially if one didn't have previous experience building systems from that era.

I would say that it actually started in the late 1990s with the development of purpose-built new low-end parts.

Throughout the 1980s/1990s, the general trend was simple enough. One year's high-end thing became the next year's middle-end thing which became the next year's low-end thing, perhaps as part of a slightly lower end overall system. So for example, your 486DX2/66 in 1992 was a flagship system, and by mid-1995 it was a bargain basement new system. Same thing in, say, Macs - a 68040 was a flagship in late 1991, a 68040 stripped of its FPU was in the low-end machine on a ... simplified... motherboard in 1994/1995, etc.

By the late 1990s, that stopped being a thing - the Katmai PIII, for example, never reached low end status, instead Celerons became the low end thing. Same thing with video cards - you never got cheap GF3 Ti500s, you got cheap GF4 MXes.

By the time this fully settled in the late 2000s/early 2010s, computers (and key components like CPUs, GPUs, etc) became more like cars: a high-end one from today is better than a high-end one from five years ago, a low-end one from today is better than a low-end one from five years ago, etc, but comparing a low-end one today to a high-end one from five or ten years ago... is not straight forward at all.

This is especially true in laptops, too - it's very easy to find a low-end laptop that will perform worse than whatever laptop from 5-6 years earlier you're trying to replace. I've encouraged people who think their needs are low-end to get battery replacements for decent 4 year old laptops rather than get some new POS with eMMC storage, etc.

Also worth noting - some things just vanished. There were tons of quad core Sandy Bridge laptops; by Ivy Bridge/Haswell, the majority of the industry moved to the U-series chips which were only dual core. Not sure when mainstream business laptops started to have quad cores again...

And actually, good example of this - the CivVII system requirements were published today. Lowest system listed is an i3-10xxxx I believe. How does my i7-7700 with a much beefier GPU compare to that?! Who knows. I guess we'll find out when the game ships.

Reply 71 of 135, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-03, 21:36:

I remember the summer of 2005 like it was yesterday. Back then I was using an outdated computer. All my friends had Pentium4 and AthlonXp. For this reason, I remember Athlon Xp as a powerful PC, but I know that lowend C2D is much better than even the best Athlon Xp.

And none of these were particularly state of the art in 2005. Many of these systems were probably from 2002. The Athlon XP was long surpassed by 2005's sexy CPU, the X2 3800+.

But yes, if you had a PII or worse, I can understand, those seemed powerful. And they were, in comparison...

(Been there, done that, had a floppy-only 68000 Mac in early 1995, I know that feeling well...)

Reply 72 of 135, by dormcat

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-03, 21:36:

When I started the topic I wanted build retro pc from 2005, but you convinced me to C2D or i5 2gen.

For sure my target is graphic card GF750ti. I don't know which of these processors has better compatibility and whether C2D E8400/E8500 is powerful enough.

We all started this hobby as novices; maybe you just need more time. 😉

As for whether C2D E8400/8500 is powerful enough: what is your desired resolution and features? E8400 is faster than Athlon 64 X2 4800+, the fastest consumer-grade CPU money could buy in June 2005. See the PC Builds results:

GTA_SA.jpg
Filename
GTA_SA.jpg
File size
153.58 KiB
Views
322 views
File license
CC-BY-4.0

GTA5 has much higher FPS so I assume the test results of GTA: San Andreas are using the Definitive Edition of 2021, not the 2004 original.

GTA5.jpg
Filename
GTA5.jpg
File size
163.86 KiB
Views
322 views
File license
CC-BY-4.0
Shponglefan wrote on 2024-10-03, 22:32:

I can only imagine how confusing it could be trying to sift through all the different makes and models, especially if one didn't have previous experience building systems from that era.

That's why I pasted PassMark scores twice in this thread. In addition to PassMark there are other comparison tools like UserBenchmark or PC Builds. Specs of each CPU can be found at CPU-World, Technical City, TechPowerUp (also has a great GPU database), or Wikipedia; MB specs can be found at The Retro Web or respective manufacturer's sites.

VivienM wrote on 2024-10-03, 22:53:

And actually, good example of this - the CivVII system requirements were published today. Lowest system listed is an i3-10xxxx I believe. How does my i7-7700 with a much beefier GPU compare to that?! Who knows. I guess we'll find out when the game ships.

While CPU-Z scores don't necessary equal to game performance, i3-10100 has 2388, and i7-7700 has 2244.

Reply 73 of 135, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
dormcat wrote on 2024-10-03, 23:34:
VivienM wrote on 2024-10-03, 22:53:

And actually, good example of this - the CivVII system requirements were published today. Lowest system listed is an i3-10xxxx I believe. How does my i7-7700 with a much beefier GPU compare to that?! Who knows. I guess we'll find out when the game ships.

While CPU-Z scores don't necessary equal to game performance, i3-10100 has 2388, and i7-7700 has 2244.

This feels like 2005 all over again! Maybe it's time for me to build a new modern box, but... the landscape is so bleak for an Intel fanboy. Bleaker than in 2005, actually. At least in 2005 the Intel processors didn't burn themselves out... and Intel had the best transistors.

I remember 2005 well, I was... starting to get tempted... by the dark side and the 939 Athlon X2 3800+. The more things change, the more... they stay the same.

Reply 74 of 135, by Shponglefan

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
VivienM wrote on 2024-10-04, 00:04:

This feels like 2005 all over again! Maybe it's time for me to build a new modern box, but... the landscape is so bleak for an Intel fanboy. Bleaker than in 2005, actually. At least in 2005 the Intel processors didn't burn themselves out... and Intel had the best transistors.

I remember 2005 well, I was... starting to get tempted... by the dark side and the 939 Athlon X2 3800+. The more things change, the more... they stay the same.

I'm in the same boat. Been using intel processors since C2D and currently running an 8700k in my main gaming rig. But when I upgrade next year, probably going to be to an AMD processor.

On a side note, I'm a little shocked at how pricey some of these older Intel processors like the 8700k, 9900k, etc, are these days.

Pentium 4 Multi-OS Build
486 DX4-100 with 6 sound cards
486 DX-33 with 5 sound cards

Reply 75 of 135, by akimmet

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

The top spec parts for a certain platform always would retain its value longer than the lower spec stuff. However in this case, I just suspect delusional Ebay pricing.

Reply 76 of 135, by VivienM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
akimmet wrote on 2024-10-04, 00:29:

The top spec parts for a certain platform always would retain its value longer than the lower spec stuff. However in this case, I just suspect delusional Ebay pricing.

I just did a quick eBay search for sold 8700ks, got around CAD$120 + shipping...

I'm not sure if that's high or low for a top spec CPU. How's the market for 3770ks for my ivy bridge system?

Reply 77 of 135, by dormcat

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
VivienM wrote on 2024-10-04, 00:34:

I just did a quick eBay search for sold 8700ks, got around CAD$120 + shipping...

I'm not sure if that's high or low for a top spec CPU. How's the market for 3770ks for my ivy bridge system?

-K CPU with unlocked multipliers always have premium prices. I bought a 3770 (for NT$760 / CA$32) instead of 3770K as many sellers of the latter demanded 50-100% overprice for just 3% faster base speed (3.5 vs. 3.4 GHz) and the same turbo speed (3.9 GHz) if not overclocked.

Reply 78 of 135, by rasz_pl

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-03, 12:57:

What do you think about MSI P965 PLATINUM DDR2 775 ATX or IGABYTE GA-8P965UBH-RH 1.0
or MSI G31TM-P35

worse than "low end" Asus LX3 😀

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-03, 12:57:

or Gigabyte GA-P35C-DS3R

this one is better than "low end" Asus LX3, but all the better things it deliver are useless to you.

Guys forget processor prices, look at motherboards, especially the ones that allow overclocking. Those will be the source of sticker shock.

https://github.com/raszpl/FIC-486-GAC-2-Cache-Module for AT&T Globalyst
https://github.com/raszpl/386RC-16 memory board
https://github.com/raszpl/440BX Reference Design adapted to Kicad
https://github.com/raszpl/Zenith_ZBIOS MFM-300 Monitor

Reply 79 of 135, by chinny22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-03, 21:36:
@Dormcat […]
Show full quote

@Dormcat

You have the right.

I remember the summer of 2005 like it was yesterday. Back then I was using an outdated computer. All my friends had Pentium4 and AthlonXp. For this reason, I remember Athlon Xp as a powerful PC, but I know that lowend C2D is much better than even the best Athlon Xp.

Thats correct I didn't experience of buying separate components (MB, CPU, RAM, GPU, Sound, NIC, HDD, ODD, SSD, PSU, chassis......) and put them together into a complete system. I only changed in laptops hdd to ssd and added ram memory.

When I started the topic I wanted build retro pc from 2005, but you convinced me to C2D or i5 2gen.

For sure my target is graphic card GF750ti. I don't know which of these processors has better compatibility and whether C2D E8400/E8500 is powerful enough.

I'm playing GTA SA on a quad core 2.50Ghz with GTX590 at max settings without issue
Your proposed build of a dual core 3Ghz with a 750ti is much faster than mine, you'll be fine.