computergeek92 wrote:

I compare AMD K7 clock speeds to the equivalent Pentium 4 cpu, so the 1.3GHz Duron is actually as fast as a 1.8GHz Pentium 4 based on benchmarks I believe.

Not quite - they're somewhat tough to compare straight-across. And that's not to say the P4 1.8 would be appropriate here either; you'd really want a fast AthlonXP, Pentium 4, or Athlon64 and much more powerful graphics card than a GeForce 2 to work out such games. 😊

For example, EE2 recommends a 2.2GHz P4, and higher wouldn't hurt either.

With the PSU calculator not focusing on rail supply, how does that affect the accuracy of the combined wattage of each part of my system? Am I still at 185W as I said earlier?

It's inaccurate overall - the wattage specs that it provides are much too high IMO. If you draw 185W at the wall I'd be seriously surprised.

I also have an Athlon T-Bird 1.1GHz cpu that has the exact same wattage as the 1.3GHz Duron. Is it a better choice for 3D games because of it's 256KB L2 vs the Duron's 64KB L2? Or is the Duron's addition of SSE and hardware prefetch make it a better cpu choice instead? I know Duron's of this era are 100MHz slower than an Athlon at the same clock speed.

Neither is really a good match for the games you've mentioned, they're both too old/slow.

It is better to say Durons were around 10% slower than Athlons of same generation at equal clock.
Applebread based Durons are ideal for low consumption, and if you have the juice they are highly overclockable and the cache can be unlocked as well. PSU with strong 5V line will be essential for overclocking, those motherboards were not exactly excelling in voltage regulation.

Nevermind the 2005 era games, that was newest I was considering based on their system requirements. I will mostly play 2000-2002 era games. Which cpu will fare better with 3D games released in their own generation then?

Also, I never overclock any of my rigs. I just buy a faster cpu for next to nothing on Ebay.

I think it depends on the game; "on average" I'm guessing it's a coin toss, unless you know you have a lot of things that rely on SSE heavily. If your board can take an AthlonXP I might just do that and be done with it though; just completely side-step the whole discussion and have more power (some games, like Morrowind or WarCraft 3, would probably appreciate it, and it may even let you get away with Empire Earth 2 if your graphics card can handle it).

Athlon XP minimum if you like 60fps. Games based on Unreal engine will happily use the cycles for example. Almost any game will. I recently played Wheel of Time (1999), Deus Ex (2000) and NOLF (2000) and all needed an Athlon XP to maintain acceptable frame rate in intense situations with a number of baddies. Or just looking across a wide open game area that kicks up the scene polygon count. Slot A Athlon 1000 and was barely playable sometimes, probably dropping to 10fps. Using a Voodoo5 vs say a Geforce4 can help though if Glide is supported because Glide is less demanding of the CPU (think of AMD's Mantle).

Or consider Total Annihilation. 1997. CPU rendered 3D units against a 8-bit color terrain bitmap. That game will happily use an Athlon 64 to the limit in big multiplayer games and single player skirmishes. The system requirements suggest a Pentium MMX. 🤣

The reality is we accepted low frame rates back then. Period authenticity with hardware and games usually means low frame rate.