VOGONS


First post, by JayPointSystems

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hi everyone,

actually, I thought my "9-in-1" collection was finally complete, but as any fellow enthusiast knows: the definition of "finished" is usually just a temporary state of mind. The urge to close one last gap in my retro-building journey was ultimately stronger than my self-discipline - so here is the first expansion and my very first pure AMD build in this project.

Athlon XP Palomino meets 2026

ASUS A7V333 Rev. 2.00
AMD Athlon XP 2100+ (AX2100DMT3C)
NVIDIA Quadro4 980 XGL
2x 256 MB Infineon DDR-RAM PC2100
80 GB Western Digital WD800
BeQuiet! Straight Power 10 700 Watt
Windows XP Professional RTM

Everything is housed in an Aerocool Quantum Mesh v3, this time featuring controllable RGB fans.

Show me...

The Hardware

PIC%231.png

GPU Close-up

PIC%232.png

The Battlestation

PIC%233.png

This build represents the performance peak of early 2002 and captures a specific moment in time right before a major turning point, after which the balance of power shifted and ATI and Intel dominated the market for the following year and a half.

The heart of this build is one of the most mature Socket A boards of its era. A standout feature is the "CPU Overheat Protection", which finally allowed reading the processor's internal thermal diode instead of relying on a sluggish socket sensor. Back in the day, earlier solutions were often so inaccurate and slow that the CPU would be grilled before the system could even react. It sounds unthinkable today, but for the Thunderbird and early Athlon XP chips, this was a serious issue: unlike their Intel counterparts, these CPUs had no internal thermal failsafes and were entirely dependent on the motherboard's capabilities.

The Palomino-based Athlon XP marked the third evolution of the K7 architecture and was the absolute spearhead of gaming at the time. Despite its nominal clock of 1.73 GHz, it easily traded blows with Intel’s 2.2 GHz class, often delivering even more performance than its own PR rating suggested. However, due to the 180nm process and high power density, the processor hit its thermal limits quickly; the 2100+ already has a TDP of 72 watts. This makes the Palomino a classic transition processor - crucial for the Athlon XP's debut, but technically at its limit before it could even truly take off.

To realize an absolute high-end setup from early 2002, the graphics card required a bit of creativity, as I wasn't willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for an NVIDIA GeForce 4 Ti 4600 - much to the chagrin of the "gold diggers" out there. Instead, I opted for a technically identical alternative from the workstation segment: the NVIDIA Quadro4 980 XGL.

This card is a later NV28 revision - basically a CAD-optimized Ti 4800, which is identical to a Ti 4600 but with AGP 8x support. Since the board only supports AGP 4x anyway, the gaming performance difference is exactly zero. In early 2002, there simply was nothing faster for gamers, even if the masses flocked to the Ti 4200 due to its unbeatable price-to-performance ratio and the fact that the top-tier models often saw their lead vanish into a CPU bottleneck anyway.

In case anyone is wondering why I’m using such a beefy PSU for this build: it’s all about the massive current demand on the 5V rail and the resulting crossload issues found in old, group-regulated ATX power supplies. To keep things stable, I’m using a modern DC-DC unit that provides sufficient amperage on the relevant rails without the voltages drifting apart under lopsided loads.

The system hits over 10,500 points in "3D Mark 2001 SE" in its pure stock configuration. It represents the gold standard that other high-end systems of the era had to be measured against. The PC runs rock-solid, stays relatively cool thanks to the excellent airflow, and delivers more than enough performance for any game from that period.

The entire project - from assembly to testing - is documented in the linked video (in German): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2PWBCL4b3Q

Reply 1 of 7, by RetroPCCupboard

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

So now you need to build another 8 machines to show the AMD evolution, as you did with the Intel-based 9 in 1. 😀

Reply 2 of 7, by Matth79

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Pure AMD.... Now ideally that would be an AMD 760 chipset and an AMD (or were they still ATI) GPU

Reply 3 of 7, by JayPointSystems

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2026-05-02, 08:45:

So now you need to build another 8 machines to show the AMD evolution, as you did with the Intel-based 9 in 1. 😀

That’s a tempting idea! 😀 But honestly, in my book, the AMD timeline from that era doesn't offer quite as many "glory moments" as one might think - at least not enough to justify another eight builds. I’ll probably poke a hornet’s nest here, but for example, I personally find the early K7 era much less "legendary" than it's often made out to be. While the '99 Slot A Athlon was a massive milestone, its lead vanished almost instantly once Intel’s Coppermine arrived. Things only got spicy again with the Thunderbird on Socket A, which finally put Intel in the hot seat - especially since Intel's Willamette was such a disaster. Don't get me wrong, it's not about bashing AMD, but I find that specific era of "Intel in distress" much more interesting to document than a flawless AMD run! 😀

I’m definitely adding one last milestone, though: a Socket 939 Athlon 64. It was an absolute masterpiece and arguably AMD’s finest hour back then. However, that was also the exact moment the Pentium M signaled the "Götterdämmerung" for AMD’s gaming dominance, right before the Core 2 Duo arrived to finish the job.

Matth79 wrote on 2026-05-02, 15:59:

Pure AMD.... Now ideally that would be an AMD 760 chipset and an AMD (or were they still ATI) GPU

Point taken! You’re absolutely right. I should have phrased it as an "AMD-based platform" 🙂

Reply 4 of 7, by RetroPCCupboard

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Back in the day, I exclusively bought AMD, as it was much better value for money. But, yeah, I tend to prefer Intel builds now. I am planning to build an Athlon XP and Athlon 64 socket 939 system though.

Reply 5 of 7, by AlexZ

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Great rig, but it's visible in Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 that the CPU isn't powerful enough. FPS drops to low 30s. You would benefit from Athlon XP 3000+ (barton) AXDA3000DKV4D. It runs on 333FSB, 512kB cache, perfect for your board. Palomino isn't good for anything else than CPU collection. Windows XP runs better with 1GB RAM. 2x 256MB RAM is really minimum. Best find 1x 1GB RAM and run it in Command Rate 1T.

Socket 939 Athlon 64 is great if you can find a X2 2.2Ghz CPU cheap. With single core, it's just a faster version of s754 or socket A. I moved to s754 and sold my socket A boards. If you cannot find a cheap CPU, better go with AM2.

Back in the day I had Athlon XP and only Intel from there on.

Pentium III 900E,ECS P6BXT-A+,384MB,GeForce FX 5600, Voodoo 2,Yamaha SM718
Turion 64 MT-40@2.4Ghz,Gigabyte GA-K8NE,2GB,GeForce GTX 275,Audigy 2ZS
Phenom II X4 955,Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3,8GB,GeForce GTX 780
Vishera FX-8370,Asus 990FX,32GB,GeForce GTX 980 Ti

Reply 6 of 7, by luk1999

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I used A7V333 for some short time in my Athlon XP retro rig and I didn't like that a lot of things (like additional IDE controller or chassis intruder option) has to be set by jumpers on board. Like in 486-class PC. But I liked that it has an additional USB 2.0 controller made by VIA, so I didn't need to install anything else than just proper version of 4in1. And of course support for AGP 3,3 V cards - in case that you'd like to build overpowered Voodoo 5 monster (which I don't have unfortunately).
Later I switched to MSI KT2 Combo that is much easier to be powered by newer PSUs, because it has P4 +12V connector (and still supports AGP 2x / 3,3 V and USB 2.0 by VIA 8235 SB).

P4 3.4E, ASUS P4C800-E Dlx, 1 GB, X800 PRO 256 MB AGP, SB Audigy, XP SP2
AXP 2000+, MSI KT2 Combo, 512 MB, GF3 Ti200 64 MB AGP, FM801, Me
P3 550, ABIT BH6, 128 MB, V3 2k 16 MB, YMF719, 98SE
P233MMX, Soltek SL-56A5, 64 MB, Virge 4 MB, V1 4MB, AWE32, 95 OS2

Reply 7 of 7, by JayPointSystems

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
AlexZ wrote on Yesterday, 12:58:

You would benefit from Athlon XP 3000+ (barton) AXDA3000DKV4D. It runs on 333FSB, 512kB cache, perfect for your board. Palomino isn't good for anything else than CPU collection. Windows XP runs better with 1GB RAM. 2x 256MB RAM is really minimum. Best find 1x 1GB RAM and run it in Command Rate 1T.

Socket 939 Athlon 64 is great if you can find a X2 2.2Ghz CPU cheap. With single core, it's just a faster version of s754 or socket A. I moved to s754 and sold my socket A boards. If you cannot find a cheap CPU, better go with AM2.

Thanks for the feedback and the suggestions!

You’re absolutely right that a Barton 3000+ or more RAM would significantly boost performance. However, that would run counter to my goal of maintaining a strictly period-correct chronology for this project series. With this specific build, I wanted to capture the exact peak of early 2002, just before the market shifted. Since the Barton didn’t arrive until 2003 and 1GB of RAM didn't become standard for gaming until later, I intentionally chose the Palomino and 512MB to preserve the authentic experience - including the limitations of that era. 🙂

For the year 2003, I’m using my System #5 (Socket 478, Pentium 4 C 3.4 HT Northwood, GeCube Radeon 9800 XT, and 2x 512MB Corsair CMX512 PC3200).

My upcoming Socket 939 build is designed to bridge the gap to my 2005 System #6 (Socket 479 desktop board, Pentium M 780 Dothan, Leadtek GeForce 7800 GTX, and 2x 1024MB OCZ Gold DDR2).

Accordingly, it will be a 2004 "Sweetspot" build, and I already have the components ready: an ASUS A8V Deluxe, Athlon 64 3500+ Newcastle, PNY GeForce 6800 GT, and another set of 2x 512MB Corsair CMX512 PC3200.

Whether I’ll continue beyond a total of eleven systems, I’m not sure yet. 😄

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

luk1999 wrote on Yesterday, 17:46:

I used A7V333 for some short time in my Athlon XP retro rig and I didn't like that a lot of things (like additional IDE controller or chassis intruder option) has to be set by jumpers on board. Like in 486-class PC.

It’s definitely strange to see ASUS revert to so many jumpers when their Pentium III boards had already gone 'JumperFree' years prior. It feels a bit out of place for 2002, but in a weird way, that quirky, old-school handling is actually part of the charm for me!