Ok then, let's move out of the subjective territory: http://www.anandtech.com/show/1517

Most of the general/everyday usage tests put the Athlon 64 on top in this review. Sometimes the differences are small, sometimes big. This goes both ways, although Intel mostly wins on video encoding and photo editing tests, so that's not really going to win them any points on our discussion.

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Here's how a PXE-840 with a 6800 Ultra performs (notice how well the 4000+ does):
http://techreport.com/review/8285/intel-penti … 840-processor/6

What's really hilarious to me is that a Sempron 150 outperforms even the Athlon64 FX-55 which is shown near the top in these older tests.

This post has been edited - I made it shorter. Hopefully that doesn't bother anyone. 😀

F2bnp wrote:

Ok then, let's move out of the subjective territory
Most of the general/everyday usage tests put the Athlon 64 on top in this review. Sometimes the differences are small, sometimes big. This goes both ways, although Intel mostly wins on video encoding and photo editing tests, so that's not really going to win them any points on our discussion.

Why wasn't this part of your initial post? Honestly you're the one that brought up Athlon64, and the Athlon64 vs Pentium 4 cage-match, and it seems to be a topic that you're very passionate about (and I'm not begrudging you for that). My response has really nothing to do with that - I'm primarily taking issue with the opinionated claim about "a feeling of snappiness" which I have not seen defined or fleshed-out, either as a subjective experience or through the Anand data (which was interesting to read through (one thing that I found very interesting, especially in context of this thread: the system power measurements!)). I would say that based on the Anand data (and the other benchmark/reviews that I and Standard Def Steve posted) my original generalization that they're "pretty comparable" isn't too far off the mark, especially for our purposes here.

Maybe it's time for someone to open a new thread to discuss A64 vs P4 😀

Let's keep it on topic and compare P3 with P4 for Windows 98SE builds 😀

I think the A64/P4 discussion actually touched on something pertinent even for a P3/P4 discussion - since we're talking about games, the graphics adapter is often just as important a factor as the CPU because it is usually the limiting variable for 3D performance. I think it would be very useful to know specifically what kinds of games are being proposed for such a 98SE build; is the goal to build the ultimate Voodoo 2 SLI monster? Or are we aiming for pixel shaders and hardware TnL?

And perhaps I'm drawing a blank here, but I'm not able to come up with a very long list of games that require 3D acceleration and a fast processor from the late 1990s. Most of the games I can think of from that time period usually barely require a Pentium II and 32-64MB of memory - while a P4 2.4A may be significantly faster than a 900MHz P3, I doubt it's anything you'd notice at the end of the day if you're talking about something like SimCity 3000.

I wonder why no one has brought it up after all the mention about power, a cheap mobile edition that fits the same socket and runs except for the low multiplier. P4 Mobiles had be had for almost for free and they use hardly nothing, they all default to 12x when used in normal 478 boards. Toss one in and start nuking the fsb.

nforce4max wrote:

I wonder why no one has brought it up after all the mention about power, a cheap mobile edition that fits the same socket and runs except for the low multiplier. P4 Mobiles had be had for almost for free and they use hardly nothing, they all default to 12x when used in normal 478 boards. Toss one in and start nuking the fsb.

I vaguely remember those appearing in lap-burning DTR builds - aren't some of them actually pretty power hungry? (like 60-70W TDP)

obobskivich wrote:

nforce4max wrote:

I wonder why no one has brought it up after all the mention about power, a cheap mobile edition that fits the same socket and runs except for the low multiplier. P4 Mobiles had be had for almost for free and they use hardly nothing, they all default to 12x when used in normal 478 boards. Toss one in and start nuking the fsb.

I vaguely remember those appearing in lap-burning DTR builds - aren't some of them actually pretty power hungry? (like 60-70W TDP)

Those were very late in the life of the P4 in the mobile world, they start out like 1.4-1.6 ghz and only need 35W max but top out at 50W at 2.5ghz. I remember reading that some people managed to do 3ghz+ and only using like 60w give or take.

It's true, such a fast PIII or slow P4 isn't really required. But the topic of "maxed out" this and that, be it a 5x85 133 or 1.4 GHz Tualatin always pops up and I lean towards not maxing out anything but going with the next model up.

E.g. a Pentium instead of a maxed out 5x86 or a 486SX instead of a maxed out 386.

With this usually come cool features such as PS/2, Y2K support, LBA and more.

Regarding Voodoo 2, I'm putting things in place for a massive CPU scaling project. It will take me weeks, if not months, but hopefully it will be worth it 😀

I can't wait seeing all the charts and data come together. It will feature, Slot 1, Socket 370 and Socket 478.

In an Athlon64 vs P4 match, you have to give the win to the A64 for the simple reason that when comparing chips of equal performance, the A64 will normally be clocked lower meaning it will draw less power, and produce less heat than the comparable P4.

nforce4max wrote:

Those were very late in the life of the P4 in the mobile world, they start out like 1.4-1.6 ghz and only need 35W max but top out at 50W at 2.5ghz. I remember reading that some people managed to do 3ghz+ and only using like 60w give or take.

Very interesting. All I remember of P4m, honestly, was those Dell XPS DTRs with insane mobile graphics chips (at least for their day) that were perfectly content to burn a hole through the surface of the earth and rejoin the magma at the planet's core... 😲

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

It's true, such a fast PIII or slow P4 isn't really required. But the topic of "maxed out" this and that, be it a 5x85 133 or 1 […]
Show full quote

It's true, such a fast PIII or slow P4 isn't really required.
But the topic of "maxed out" this and that, be it a 5x85 133 or 1.4 GHz Tualatin always pops up and I lean towards not maxing out anything but going with the next model up.
E.g. a Pentium instead of a maxed out 5x86 or a 486SX instead of a maxed out 386.

With this usually come cool features such as PS/2, Y2K support, LBA and more.

I'd agree with this reasoning - why push a platform to the limits vs taking the entry/mid-range of the next tier up. 😀

I was more just curious what kinds of applications we should really be targeting here - there's gotta be more than Quake 3 right? 🤣

Regarding Voodoo 2, I'm putting things in place for a massive CPU scaling project. It will take me weeks, if not months, but hopefully it will be worth it 😀

I can't wait seeing all the charts and data come together. It will feature, Slot 1, Socket 370 and Socket 478.

I'm very interested in the result of this too - I know Dodge Garage did a multi-card shootout a few years ago with a Pentium 3 1.0, and speculated about what a faster CPU would do for the cards as they were still running into CPU limits on some tests.

Any plans to test another card that doesn't rely on the CPU for geometry/TnL? (e.g. GeForce 256)

sliderider wrote:

In an Athlon64 vs P4 match, you have to give the win to the A64 for the simple reason that when comparing chips of equal performance, the A64 will normally be clocked lower meaning it will draw less power, and produce less heat than the comparable P4.

Can we not do this again?

The catch with the mobiles besides not having an ihs is the multiplier, Intel did some changes that allowed for two multiplier states but is dependent on the north bridge to provide the signal to change to the higher state. In the end these are perfect for those high fsb clocking boards.

nforce4max wrote:

The catch with the mobiles besides not having an ihs is the multiplier, Intel did some changes that allowed for two multiplier states but is dependent on the north bridge to provide the signal to change to the higher state. In the end these are perfect for those high fsb clocking boards.

Well 12x200 out of the box should be more than good enough for a Windows 98 box I'd think... 😀

obobskivich wrote:

at the end of the day if you're talking about something like SimCity 3000.

its funny you specifically mentioned that game because for me I always consider that a demanding game and its what I specifically test playing when I'm building a win 98 rig. back when I bought it when it came out it mostly crawled on my crappy Compaq 1ghz Pentium 3. certainly playable but not optimal. always get stuttering on that intro video as well. when i built my ss7 machine with a OC 560mhz amd-k6-III+ with a tnt2 ultra It was sluggish and got stuttering in the intro. wasn't until I built my 1.4ghz AMD machine with a geforce 3 that it was smooth.

I've heard sc3k is just a poorly optimized game though

I personally do not mind the bit of off-topicness but as for the particular "maxed out" machine I'm not considering an AMD machine since as prior stated I have a AMD based windows 98 rig running a voodoo 5500 and a vortex 2 card. I wanted to look at the other side of the coin and go strictly Intel with a geforce 4 and creative audio card to max things out. if both are going to be comparable to the the point of getting the same frame rates in all win98 games then I suppose it comes down to other things like price and availability and from what I'm reading here it seems the p4 would be the more convenient option.

Lets face it. The Pentium 4 always was a bad CPU.
I used to use a Celeron D (cut down pentium 4) on my main machine with Vista. It was very slow
and under the slightest load the fan would spool up. Replaced it with a core 2 duo and there was no comparison
and the fan never spins up if kept dust free.

As far as Simcity 3000, it used to be playable (barely) on a Pentium 1 with Windows 95.
I don't think any of the CPUs discussed here will have the slightest problem with it.

I cant imagine sc3k being playable on even a 233mhz p1 even though the requirement is a 166 P1 but then Ive been surprised before. I could barley stand it on a p3 but then I suppose whats "playable" is somewhat subjective.

soviet conscript wrote:

its funny you specifically mentioned that game because for me I always consider that a demanding game and its what I specificall […]
Show full quote

obobskivich wrote:

at the end of the day if you're talking about something like SimCity 3000.

its funny you specifically mentioned that game because for me I always consider that a demanding game and its what I specifically test playing when I'm building a win 98 rig. back when I bought it when it came out it mostly crawled on my crappy Compaq 1ghz Pentium 3. certainly playable but not optimal. always get stuttering on that intro video as well. when i built my ss7 machine with a OC 560mhz amd-k6-III+ with a tnt2 ultra It was sluggish and got stuttering in the intro. wasn't until I built my 1.4ghz AMD machine with a geforce 3 that it was smooth.

I've heard sc3k is just a poorly optimized game though

I personally do not mind the bit of off-topicness but as for the particular "maxed out" machine I'm not considering an AMD machine since as prior stated I have a AMD based windows 98 rig running a voodoo 5500 and a vortex 2 card. I wanted to look at the other side of the coin and go strictly Intel with a geforce 4 and creative audio card to max things out. if both are going to be comparable to the the point of getting the same frame rates in all win98 games then I suppose it comes down to other things like price and availability and from what I'm reading here it seems the p4 would be the more convenient option.

Honestly I remember that intro-video being choppy on my P4 2GHz; I think it's just how that video is. 😊

soviet conscript wrote:

I cant imagine sc3k being playable on even a 233mhz p1 even though the requirement is a 166 P1 but then Ive been surprised before. I could barley stand it on a p3 but then I suppose whats "playable" is somewhat subjective.

I know but I used to do it. It was laggy but playable.
As far as the intro video.. well its just a video

Standard Def Steve wrote:

F2bnp wrote:

I think the Athlon 64 will prove to be a much better retro machine than the P4 in the coming years. We'll see I guess 😜

This. IMO the only time buying a P4 made any sense was during the first few months of 2003--when the Athlon XP was finally starting to run out of steam and A64 wasn't quite ready. I will admit that I'm a little biased; I was burned by the horrible combination of Willamette and PC133. I've been pissed off ever since. 🤣

Still, the Athlon 64 is a completely different class of machine. It's cool, fast, modern (64-bit, has an IMC). If you put a fast AGP card like the x1950Pro in a S478 board, the platform will just feel like a bottleneck. An nForce3 based platform on the other hand will allow the card to open up.

MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum comes to mind! I LOVE this NF3 board and the AMD Athlon X2 4800+ Socket 939 processor seriously hauls in it..

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Also the P4 platform is the next big thing in retro gaming. Just give it a few years. Now parts are cheap and easy to get. Get in now before prices go up. Soon people want to build vintage systems for Farcry and Half Life 2.

You always mention the P4 as the rig to go for. Isn't Athlon XP something to consider as well?