Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-09, 09:00:

Why are the 8400 and 8500 so much cheaper than the E8600? Is it because of the last model of the series?

Probably. The fastest CPU of a certain era / series always cost much more. Pentium-MMX 233 MHz, K6-III+ 550 MHz, Pentium III-S 1.4 GHz, Athlon 64 FX-57, i7-3770K, you name it.

Power supply, what do you recommend for the E8400/E8500 and the 750Ti graphics card?

Any modern power supply with 80 Plus certification will do.

If you're building a PC to play games from ~2005 on Win XP, you will not need more than 2GB. Games from that time don't tend to use more than 1GB and XP cant even see more than 3.5GB. If you find a finished machine that has 2 sticks for dual-channel with 2 GB total on it, you can leave it as-is

dormcat wrote on 2024-10-09, 09:50:

Probably. The fastest CPU of a certain era / series always cost much more. Pentium-MMX 233 MHz, K6-III+ 550 MHz, Pentium III-S 1 […]
Show full quote

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-09, 09:00:

Why are the 8400 and 8500 so much cheaper than the E8600? Is it because of the last model of the series?

Probably. The fastest CPU of a certain era / series always cost much more. Pentium-MMX 233 MHz, K6-III+ 550 MHz, Pentium III-S 1.4 GHz, Athlon 64 FX-57, i7-3770K, you name it.

Power supply, what do you recommend for the E8400/E8500 and the 750Ti graphics card?

Any modern power supply with 80 Plus certification will do.

I understand that an 80 Plus certified power supply is also enough for i5 2400 and for Athlon XP and Athlon 64?

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-09, 16:38:

I understand that an 80 Plus certified power supply is also enough for i5 2400 and for Athlon XP and Athlon 64?

From my knowledge the minimal output of a PSU with 80 Plus Bronze is 350W. That's more than enough if you have a GTX 750 Ti (60W) with either C2D E8x00 (65W), i5-2400 (95W), or Athlon 64 (89W max, depending on model).

Athlon XP on Socket A (462) is a different story: Can your PSU handle Athlon or Duron Socket A processors?
You need minimal 20A, preferably 30A on +5V rail. Most modern 80 Plus Titanium models with >1000W output offer only 25A on +5V rail, not to mention they cost more (>US$250) than most retro systems.

If the goal is to play 2005-era games, an Athlon XP system doesn't make sense anyway. The fastest XP (3200+) is a 2003 processor and will be a lot slower than even fast Athlon 64 X2 or FX processors, much less Core 2 and beyond.

Now I'm interested in building a retro pc based on the C2D E8500.

But out of curiosity, I asked how it was with other platforms.

Can Pentium 4 also be operated with a modern power supply?

In 2005, my friends' best PCs were Athlon XP and Pentium4 3.2 GHz. Hard to believe that these computers were not as powerful as I thought.

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-09, 21:48:

Now I'm interested in building a retro pc based on the C2D E8500. […]
Show full quote

Now I'm interested in building a retro pc based on the C2D E8500.

But out of curiosity, I asked how it was with other platforms.

Can Pentium 4 also be operated with a modern power supply?

In 2005, my friends' best PCs were Athlon XP and Pentium4 3.2 GHz. Hard to believe that these computers were not as powerful as I thought.

Yes, modern ATX power supplies can be used with Pentium 4. I use a modern Seasonic 750W modular power supply in my Pentium 4 build.

I've also used a 1000W Seasonic PSU with an Athlon XP build. As dorncat mentioned, a lot of Athlon XP motherboards primarily use the 5V rail so you need decent amps from the PSU which a lot of modern power supplies don't have. So you have to be more selective when using with an Athlon XP (depending on the motherboard).

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-09, 21:48:

In 2005, my friends' best PCs were Athlon XP and Pentium4 3.2 GHz. Hard to believe that these computers were not as powerful as I thought.

Here's the thing - computers back then typically had a 4 year lifecycle, maybe less if you had more money. So, assuming a normal distribution of computer ages, if you were to visit 4 friends in 2005, one friend would have a brand new computer (that just replaced a 4 year old one), one friend would have a one year old computer, one friend would have a two year old computer, and one friend would have a three year computer. Unless, say, you were in first year university and everybody had gotten new computers to take to university (which is/was a very common practice in North America), not everybody would have computers the same age.

So, the average computer at any time is two years old, which happens to align with your Athlon XP/Pentium 4 recollection for 2005.

And there would have been nothing wrong with Athlon XPs and Pentium 4s in 2005, no one would be e-wasting 2-year old systems, but... at the same time, they were not the most powerful thing you could get in 2005. They would be the 'average' in a world of 4-year lifecycles. And then, of course, in 2006, came the C2D, which Anand Lal Shimpi of AnandTech described as "the most impressive piece of silicon the world has ever seen - and the fastest desktop processor we've ever tested."

(Now, if you had a Pentium MMX in 2005, I can understand why you would have such memories of Athlon XPs and Pentium 4s as super-powerful...)

dormcat wrote on 2024-10-09, 18:53:

From my knowledge the minimal output of a PSU with 80 Plus Bronze is 350W. That's more than enough if you have a GTX 750 Ti (60W […]
Show full quote

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-09, 16:38:

I understand that an 80 Plus certified power supply is also enough for i5 2400 and for Athlon XP and Athlon 64?

From my knowledge the minimal output of a PSU with 80 Plus Bronze is 350W. That's more than enough if you have a GTX 750 Ti (60W) with either C2D E8x00 (65W), i5-2400 (95W), or Athlon 64 (89W max, depending on model).

Athlon XP on Socket A (462) is a different story: Can your PSU handle Athlon or Duron Socket A processors?
You need minimal 20A, preferably 30A on +5V rail. Most modern 80 Plus Titanium models with >1000W output offer only 25A on +5V rail, not to mention they cost more (>US$250) than most retro systems.

Thank you guys for all the replies.

One thing makes me wonder. In 2011 I bought laptop with i3 350m processor. Was this laptop good for 2011? According to benchmarks, the i3 350 processor was more powerful than the E8400. I don't want to believe it. What is your opinion?

Storage speed can be a large part of system feel and laptops have slower drives than desktops in general. Also unless you specifically lock in a high performance power profile, you may find you are not experiencing full speed of a laptop CPU.

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-10, 09:41:

According to benchmarks, the i3 350 processor was more powerful than the E8400.

can you link those benchmarks?

rasz_pl wrote on 2024-10-10, 12:27:

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-10, 09:41:

According to benchmarks, the i3 350 processor was more powerful than the E8400.

can you link those benchmarks?

Here
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-C … -350/2720vsm572

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-10, 13:59:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-C … -350/2720vsm572

I dont consider sites like that legitimate 🙁 more of a worthless spam with affiliated links 😐 For example what exactly do they mean by overclocked i3 350 considering its a locked laptop CPU you can barely nudge by tens of MHz? How did the somehow magically overclocked it by 20% according to their magical "points"? Meanwhile E8400 goes all the way to the moon but according to this site it once again overclocks by 20%? Scores in points of who knows what? 😀
Real life programs:
Cinebench multicore https://hwbot.org/submission/5050445 https://hwbot.org/submission/2566915
7zip https://hwbot.org/submission/5026290 https://hwbot.org/submission/5246319

More or less same performance at 1/3 higher clock but half execution threads.

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-10, 09:41:

One thing makes me wonder. In 2011 I bought laptop with i3 350m processor. Was this laptop good for 2011? According to benchmarks, the i3 350 processor was more powerful than the E8400. I don't want to believe it. What is your opinion?

No, it was not good for 2011. Good for 2011 laptop would have been a quad-core Sandy Bridge, like an i7-2630QM or i7-2760QM. (The quad-core Sandy Bridge laptops were beasts, I had three of them at different times. Other than Windows 11's hardware requirements they're still outstanding performers today) This would have been a low end laptop processor from early 2010.

That being said, E8400 was a desktop chip from 2008 and it was a bit behind the times by being only dual core at a time desktop land was migrating towards quad cores. i3-350M has hyperthreading, fewer MHz, etc. My expectation without looking at benchmarks - the i3-350M will beat it on loads that can benefit from hyperthreading, the E8400 will do better otherwise - higher clock rate, desktop cooling, etc.

VivienM wrote on 2024-10-10, 15:41:

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-10, 09:41:

One thing makes me wonder. In 2011 I bought laptop with i3 350m processor. Was this laptop good for 2011? According to benchmarks, the i3 350 processor was more powerful than the E8400. I don't want to believe it. What is your opinion?

No, it was not good for 2011. Good for 2011 laptop would have been a quad-core Sandy Bridge, like an i7-2630QM or i7-2760QM.

It WAS good for 2011. This was a time when dual-core CPU's were still very good for gaming. Just because it wasn't the best, doesn't mean it wasn't good. If you had an i3 laptop during this time, your game experience would be bottle-necked by the GPU.

And yes, they were better than Core2Duos and Quads during that time because games were still using mostly 2 cores.

Munx wrote on 2024-10-10, 15:56:

VivienM wrote on 2024-10-10, 15:41:

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-10, 09:41:

One thing makes me wonder. In 2011 I bought laptop with i3 350m processor. Was this laptop good for 2011? According to benchmarks, the i3 350 processor was more powerful than the E8400. I don't want to believe it. What is your opinion?

No, it was not good for 2011. Good for 2011 laptop would have been a quad-core Sandy Bridge, like an i7-2630QM or i7-2760QM.

It WAS good for 2011. This was a time when dual-core CPU's were still very good for gaming. Just because it wasn't the best, doesn't mean it wasn't good. If you had an i3 laptop during this time, your game experience would be bottle-necked by the GPU.

Perhaps our definition of 'good' is different.

I was answering the question based on what was available in the marketplace in 2011. And I stand by that view - if you went out in summer 2011 shopping for a laptop, and you came home with an i3 350M, you were not buying a 'good' laptop.

Now, if you mean good in terms of... usable with 2011's software, sure, an i3-350m will be at least as usable as many other processors that would have been widely used in 2011.

VivienM wrote on 2024-10-10, 16:19:

Perhaps our definition of 'good' is different. […]
Show full quote

Munx wrote on 2024-10-10, 15:56:

VivienM wrote on 2024-10-10, 15:41:

No, it was not good for 2011. Good for 2011 laptop would have been a quad-core Sandy Bridge, like an i7-2630QM or i7-2760QM.

It WAS good for 2011. This was a time when dual-core CPU's were still very good for gaming. Just because it wasn't the best, doesn't mean it wasn't good. If you had an i3 laptop during this time, your game experience would be bottle-necked by the GPU.

Perhaps our definition of 'good' is different.

I was answering the question based on what was available in the marketplace in 2011. And I stand by that view - if you went out in summer 2011 shopping for a laptop, and you came home with an i3 350M, you were not buying a 'good' laptop.

Now, if you mean good in terms of... usable with 2011's software, sure, an i3-350m will be at least as usable as many other processors that would have been widely used in 2011.

This means that laptop with i3 350m processor was not the most powerful laptop processor at that time because it was the second generation i7. But i350m was not a weak processor in 2011. Since it wasn't the strongest processor, but also not the weakest, I rate the i3 350m like not a bad processor, or even quite good.Do you agreed?

I watched a video on YT titled:
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ for Socket 939

I don't know how it is possible that this processor with ati radeon x850 xt had fps drops at high settings in the 2003 game NFSU1

Kocyk wrote on 2024-10-11, 07:57:

I don't know how it is possible that this processor with ati radeon x850 xt had fps drops at high settings in the 2003 game NFSU1

afaik NFSU1 still has fps drops and jitter on much more powerful configs. maybe one of optional high settings is badly unoptimized

I find motherboard good price what's do you think about this

TW 0C27VV LGA775

its cheap for a good reason, its from DELL SSF

PhilsComputerLab jsut recorded video specifically for creator if this topic: "LGA 775 The Next Big Thing for Retro PC Community?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkZxnehjY_k