The K10 chips are, on average, about 10-15% faster than K8 chips clock-for-clock, and the 'K10.5' used in those Sempron 1xx chips is another ~10% (IIRC) faster yet. So the Sempron should, by all technical aspects, be the superior chip.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the Sempron 150 would be the ultimate 98SE chip though. It may be the fastest single-core CPU, but the other issue is hardware support... i.e., whether you can find an AM2/AM2+/AM3 motherboard that would get along well with 98SE.

I think it's funny how the FX-57 was once the fastest CPU for gaming and a budget chip from just a few years later kicks it's butt. 🤣

Yeah when Core 2 came along those $1k Athlon 64 FX chips weren't so interesting anymore. And that's probably why AMD cut their prices in half almost on Core 2's launch day. Core 2 was faster than Athlon 64 than Athlon 64 was Pentium 4.

swaaye wrote:

Core 2 was faster than Athlon 64 than Athlon 64 was than Pentium 4.

But Windows 98 does not support multiple cores and Core 2 Solo doesn't clock high enough to outperform a Sempron at 2.9ghz, and it's only a mobile chip in BGA format so you can't build a system around it.

Does 98SE not work on a dual core? I tried it briefly on my 775i65G with the Pentium Dual Core in there and it seemed to be working, although it did seem unstable, but I didn't really explore why it was.

swaaye wrote:

Does 98SE not work on a dual core? I tried it briefly on my 775i65G with the Pentium Dual Core in there and it seemed to be working, although it did seem unstable, but I didn't really explore why it was.

I'm pretty sure it won't see the second core just like it won't see the second CPU in a multi-processor system. You can probably run it on 1 core of a multi-core processor but that would be a waste of CPU power. Better to run it on a really fast single core.

Oh yeah it definitely won't see more than 1 CPU. But I think the one core it does see might work alright regardless.

Here's an example
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/129981-why-do … post__p__836233

Somebody did get it running on an Athlon64 x2, but with only one core functioning

http://forums.pureoverclock.com/operating-sys … processors.html

It's not known whether anyone got it working with more than one core as I can't seem to find anyone offering solid proof that it can be done.

Win9x doesn't support more than 1 CPU. But the OS doesn't blow up if you run it on a machine with more than 1 CPU. The other CPUs will just be inaccessible. People used to dual boot WinNT and 9x with their dualies.

But Windows 98 does not support multiple cores and Core 2 Solo doesn't clock high enough to outperform a Sempron at 2.9ghz, and it's only a mobile chip in BGA format so you can't build a system around it.

There's also the Conroe Celeron 4x0 series though. While they won't clock quite high enough to outperform the Sempron, they can probably come pretty close to matching it... Conroe was still a bit faster than K10.5 clock-for-clock, and I think those Semprons tend to top out at 3.4-3.6ghz, while the Celerons can usually do 3.1-3.2ghz.

And if it's easier to find a 775 board that supports 98SE than an AM2 board that does, then it may make the Celerons a better option even if you lose a few percent on the CPU performance... considering that anything at that level is going to be ridiculously fast in 98SE anyhow.

Interesting, Intel have Win9x support for 915 and 925 series. So - Win9x CAN work with PCIe... Hmm...

The sempron would probably own the FX 65's ass. I updated my brother to am+ and replaced his 939 rig. i bought cheap 30 dolalr cpu i think it's like 2ghz if that and it's as fast if not slightly faster than his his old 939 2.1ghz dual core even oced, partly due the drr3 i'd guess.