Ren225 wrote on 2024-08-22, 03:48:

Since the P4 spanned almost a decade and saw multiple architectures, it's hard to figure out exactly what the best setup is to get the most out of it with the fewest number of bottlenecks (not including it's own slow architecture hehe)

Since Northwood that's when the Pentium 4 started to get good. It's the slow Willamettes and the earlier boards with only RDRAM you should be worrying about (P4's WinME period). It's also from the era of the great capacitor plague. Good luck!

There are a few different ways to go with Pentium 4 builds. It really depends on how versatile you want the system to be in terms of coverage vs performance.

Personally, I've been spending this past year experimenting with industrial P4 motherboards with ISA slots. Rather thab pushing performance, I'm going for broad coverage, building a system to span about 15 years of gaming.

For a performance oriented build, you can target mid 2000's era. But I find once you start getting into the latter half of the 2000's, the Core2 or faster is going to be a more optimal choice.

The real fun part is that both boards seem to also support Core2 CPUs, so if the P4 doesn't do it for you, you can tinker a little with some more power 😀

But yeah, Pentium4 wasn't DDR3 territory, actually, I think it was more like DDR1 - at least Northwood arcitechture ..

I doubt any of it makes any real-world difference performance wise. just a few extra fps or marks in a benchmark.

I'd go with whichever board you like more
or
Whichever is easier/cheaper to find RAM

H3nrik V! wrote on 2024-08-22, 05:32:

The real fun part is that both boards seem to also support Core2 CPUs, so if the P4 doesn't do it for you, you can tinker a little with some more power 😀

But yeah, Pentium4 wasn't DDR3 territory, actually, I think it was more like DDR1 - at least Northwood arcitechture ..

IIRC some late model 775 P4 boards did support early DDR2 but that was due to the Nothbridge supporting it and not the CPU since it wasn't till Nehalem that Intel moved the Memory Controller the CPU, AMD IIRC had it on CPU since the K8 (2003).

Some late model 478 boards also supported DDR2, usually it was the ones with 915 and later chipsets, dont quote me on this as it was a weird time with late 478 boards. (I think Asrock and Biostar made 915 478 boards with DDR2, not that I would touch a Biostar board)

-Derp Northbridge not ICH

chinny22 wrote on 2024-08-22, 05:52:

Whichever is easier/cheaper to find RAM

I think that calls for DDR3, then

H3nrik V! wrote on 2024-08-22, 06:39:

chinny22 wrote on 2024-08-22, 05:52:

Whichever is easier/cheaper to find RAM

I think that calls for DDR3, then

Honestly the P4 wont care what you use but P43/G41 boards are rather nice solid little workhorses so nice choice either way!

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-08-22, 06:44:

H3nrik V! wrote on 2024-08-22, 06:39:

chinny22 wrote on 2024-08-22, 05:52:

Whichever is easier/cheaper to find RAM

I think that calls for DDR3, then

Honestly the P4 wont care what you use but P43/G41 boards are rather nice solid little workhorses so nice choice either way!

Yeah, that's why I would go with DDR3, as it is waaaaaay more plentiful - also in larger modules ... 😀

H3nrik V! wrote on 2024-08-22, 06:49:

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-08-22, 06:44:

H3nrik V! wrote on 2024-08-22, 06:39:

I think that calls for DDR3, then

Honestly the P4 wont care what you use but P43/G41 boards are rather nice solid little workhorses so nice choice either way!

Yeah, that's why I would go with DDR3, as it is waaaaaay more plentiful - also in larger modules ... 😀

Well you are limited to 16Gb if your Northbridge can handle it but you wont get any overclocking from running 16Gb as the Northbridge will be stretched running that amount, stick to two 4Gb fast modules and you'll be golden. Even my X48 Rampage cant handle overclocking with 16Gb due to how hot the Northbridge gets just running that amount.

The only board I have had good stability with at 16Gb was my ASUS Striker II Extreme and I believe that was simply due to a golden north bridge chip that didn't overheat when driving 16Gb.

People like to debate this but 16Gb was not common till X58 and the Core2 era Northbridges barely supported that amount, also early DDR3 was pretty terrible for both voltages and latency once you moved to 8Gb modules.

But hell give it a shot and see how your G41 goes, itll either run stable or it wont and youll spend hours tweaking it till it does or give up and fall back to 8Gb.

I rather like socket 478 for P4. There are a few motherboard / CPU combinations that can run XP64 (see https://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34882 for details). Probably among the best combinations for ISA if you find the right board. 64-bit OS with ISA and the oldest Intel 64-bit CPUs 😀

Ren225 wrote on 2024-08-22, 03:48:

Recently I snagged an old Pentium 4 630, 3GHz Prescott 2M

Do you have any plans for this except "ownership"? If you don't then buy what you want to own.

But if you do have plans, then the plans dictate the stuff, not vice versa.

So what agenda would fit a P4?

What OS do you want to run? What hardware do you aim for?

Without a metric, there is no optimal setup.

ux-3 wrote on 2024-08-22, 11:17:

Do you have any plans for this except "ownership"? If you don't then buy what you want to own. […]
Show full quote

Ren225 wrote on 2024-08-22, 03:48:

Recently I snagged an old Pentium 4 630, 3GHz Prescott 2M

Do you have any plans for this except "ownership"? If you don't then buy what you want to own.

But if you do have plans, then the plans dictate the stuff, not vice versa.

So what agenda would fit a P4?

What OS do you want to run? What hardware do you aim for?

Without a metric, there is no optimal setup.

Now that you mention it, yes, there are two goals for this hardware: first is for mid 2000's retro gaming of period hardware. And the second, which a definitely more esoteric and eclectic, is as a test bench for more modern games and personal projects. I like to tinker and try to get the most out of my gear and software, especially things that are considered "low end" and limited.

I'm thinking about using CF to IDE adapters for quick and easy "dual boot" solutions if I need to install an old OS like WIndows XP or 2000, and a modern OS like Windows 7 / 10. So the software side of things is not really an issue for me, more so the hardware setup.

For retrogaming on a P4, i'd avoid all the DX10+ class hardware since they've made some unacceptable feature sacfirices (DITHERING DITHERING DITHERING) so anything starting at Geforce 8xxx/ Radeon HDxxxx would be a no-go for me.

Ren225 wrote on 2024-08-22, 15:49:

Now that you mention it, yes, there are two goals for this hardware: first is for mid 2000's retro gaming of period hardware. And the second, which a definitely more esoteric and eclectic, is as a test bench for more modern games and personal projects. I like to tinker and try to get the most out of my gear and software, especially things that are considered "low end" and limited.

If that's your goal, why not pick up a cheap C2Q? Unlike a P4, the C2Q can run modern stuff just fine (at least up to Win11 23H2 supportedly, it's missing that instruction for 24H2), it runs dramatically cooler than a P4, etc. I don't have any benchmarks handy, but my rough guess would be that a C2Q would have at least double the single-core performance of a P4, maybe 3X, and then add in 3 extra cores on top of that. A P4 will struggle on anything Vista or newer...

Preshots (which is what you have, I think, unless yours is a Cedar Mill) were... mediocre... at the time they were new, and they're not Voodoo 5s, so they haven't exactly become more desirable with age. If anything, they have... very little... going for them as retro systems, especially once you get away from the earlier AGP chipsets that are 98SE-friendly.

I was an Intel fanboy with an aging Willamette P4/RDRAM socket 478 set up in the "mid 2000s", it was a dark era to be an Intel fan (although not as dark as now), no one wanted Preshots, we were having dirty thoughts towards S939 Athlon X2s, and... then summer 2006 and the first Conroes came out and everything was right in the world again. Go to AnandTech and read Anand's review of the C2D and how he utterly trashes the entire Hotburst lineup in comparison. That's the thing with the P4s that is... hard to forget - if anything, people overlooked how mediocre they were back in the day, but once the C2D told the world what a properly-designed processor + Intel's industry-leading transistors could do together, well, that was the end for the P4's credibility.

If going C2D/C2Q, I'd always favour the 45nm ones due to some extra instructions (helpful IIRC for Win11 <=23H2 compatibility) and much, much lower idle power consumption, but if you wanted to be more period-correct, the E6600 (and the Q6600 a few months later) was the CPU for 2006.

Ren225 wrote on 2024-08-22, 15:49:

I'm thinking about using CF to IDE adapters for quick and easy "dual boot" solutions if I need to install an old OS like WIndows XP or 2000, and a modern OS like Windows 7 / 10. So the software side of things is not really an issue for me, more so the hardware setup.

I'd go with an SSD and a bootloader if the intent is to use multiple operating systems. I've tried Windows XP on a CF card and it was quite slow compared to an SSD.

I've also found CF cards / adapters to be more finicky on boards from the 2000's and onward.

VivienM wrote on 2024-08-23, 01:02:

Preshots (which is what you have, I think, unless yours is a Cedar Mill)

They did state it's a Pentium 4 630 which is a Prescott 2M, not a Cedar Mill.

It's also not one of the hotter chips, since it has a TDW of 84W versus some of the others that are >100W. Not great, but also not the worst.

Though not as good as a D0 Cedar Mill, which are rated at only 65W. IMHO, those would be processors to use if one is concerned about heat and power draw.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-08-23, 01:17:

They did state it's a Pentium 4 630 which is a Prescott 2M, not a Cedar Mill. […]
Show full quote

VivienM wrote on 2024-08-23, 01:02:

Preshots (which is what you have, I think, unless yours is a Cedar Mill)

They did state it's a Pentium 4 630 which is a Prescott 2M, not a Cedar Mill.

It's also not one of the hotter chips, since it has a TDW of 84W versus some of the others that are >100W. Not great, but also not the worst.

Though not as good as a D0 Cedar Mill, which are rated at only 65W. IMHO, those would be processors to use if one is concerned about heat and power draw.

My recollection is that chips in those days ran quite hot when idle as well, not under load. Sure, it has a 84W TDP, but a 45nm C2Q with a 95W TDP probably guzzles 50W less at idle.

But yes, it will be a lot better than the 3.6/3.8GHZ ones...

(And yes, this may seem like an odd thing to be obsessed about, but... let's just say that when your neighbour is upset because you're running your air conditioner in April to cool a room with... two?... hotbursts and not even the worst hotbursts at that, you start to appreciate the importance of idle power consumption.)

VivienM wrote on 2024-08-23, 01:02:

Ren225 wrote on 2024-08-22, 15:49:

Now that you mention it, yes, there are two goals for this hardware: first is for mid 2000's retro gaming of period hardware. And the second, which a definitely more esoteric and eclectic, is as a test bench for more modern games and personal projects. I like to tinker and try to get the most out of my gear and software, especially things that are considered "low end" and limited.

If that's your goal, why not pick up a cheap C2Q? Unlike a P4, the C2Q can run modern stuff just fine (at least up to Win11 23H2 supportedly, it's missing that instruction for 24H2), it runs dramatically cooler than a P4, etc. I don't have any benchmarks handy, but my rough guess would be that a C2Q would have at least double the single-core performance of a P4, maybe 3X, and then add in 3 extra cores on top of that. A P4 will struggle on anything Vista or newer...

I took stock of my various chips that I have in the house, and by far the most common variety are things that run on Socket 775, Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad, heh. Q6600, Q9400 (which is actually running my file server), E6600 and E8400. My goal is specifically a P4 because it's slower than the Duo / Quad chips while still offering 64-bit support for newer OSs and applications.

I just finished running some benchmarks in Windows XP, and while I'm not surprised that it's slower, I'm still surprised at how MUCH slower it is. Even the basic E6600 is at least 2 - 3x faster, depending on the application. I'll probably install Vista onto a second drive and run some more tests, just to see.

Anyways, my goal was to tweak the memory timing to see how low I can get the CAS stuff, and how much performance it gained me. On the MSI board with DDR3, at best it was around 1%, maybe 2 when going from 9-9-9-24 to 6-6-6-15. Not bad for basic cheap ram? I tried 5-5-5-15, but it didn't post, and the board doesn't have a quick and easy BIOS reset jumper or button (as far as I could find), so I need to resort to pulling the battery and then resetting all my settings.

In the next week I'm gonna transplant all the innards to the Gigabyte motherboard and re-runs my tests using DDR2, and how things compare with both the P4 and E6600.
I've included an image of my results so far... nothing too scientific, but it at least gives me an idea of how it looks.

Ren225 wrote on 2024-08-24, 06:11:

My goal is specifically a P4 because it's slower than the Duo / Quad chips while still offering 64-bit support for newer OSs and applications.

I just finished running some benchmarks in Windows XP, and while I'm not surprised that it's slower, I'm still surprised at how MUCH slower it is. Even the basic E6600 is at least 2 - 3x faster, depending on the application. I'll probably install Vista onto a second drive and run some more tests, just to see.

But "64-bit support for newer OSes and applications" does not mean what you seem to be implying. Sure, the 64-bit OS will... boot... (at least if it doesn't rely on instructions added later - this is an early iteration of Intel EM64T after all), but it will not be usable. That P4 will be passable on ~2003-4-era software and older and that's about it. And none of that is 64-bit, either - the industry really started to move to 64-bit in ~2008 or so. By 2008, most P4s were headed to the big e-waste pile in the sky, to be replaced by one of a gazillion of affordable, cooler-running, faster, dual/quad-core 45nm C2-based products - the E5xxx Pentium Dual Cores at the low end, the Q9xxx C2Qs at the high end. (I just checked, I upgraded my secondary system from a Deleron to C2 in fall 2008 - $115CAD for a nice motherboard that I still have, $89CAD for an E5200, and that was the end of my last Hotburst. ) One of the reason LGA775 C2Ds/C2Qs are everywhere is that it was the last big upgrade cycle, the last time you called up your elderly aunt and told her that she needed to replace her XP Hotburst C/Deleron with a 64-bit Win7 C2D/C2Q (I think my aunt ended up with a Q8400 because that's what happened to be affordable at Dell that week), indeed that C2Q would go on to outlive her.

"Newer OSes and applications" is not an argument for a P4, it's an argument against a P4. If you wanted an AGP system looking back on Win98SE, sure, a P4 would do nicely. But if you want to look forward... what's a P4 going to run passably that's newer than ~2007? Meanwhile, you can dig up your C2D/C2Q today and run a modern web browser on a modern OS on it just fine - the C2 platform will run ~20+ years of x86/x64 Windows software acceptably...

Your benchmarks confirm what everybody discovered back in the summer of 2006 - the P4 was a lousy, inefficient design barely kept afloat by Intel's superior transistors.

As I said earlier, go read the AnandTech review of the E6600 Conroe (https://www.anandtech.com/show/2045). Some quotes:
- "But make no mistake, what you see before you is not the power hungry, poor performing, non-competitive garbage (sorry guys, it's the truth) that Intel has been shoving down our throats for the greater part of the past 5 years. No, you're instead looking at the most impressive piece of silicon the world has ever seen - and the fastest desktop processor we've ever tested."
- "As you will soon see, Intel's new Core 2 lineup has basically made all previous Intel processors worthless. The performance of the new Core 2 CPUs is so much greater, with much lower power consumption, that owners of NetBurst based processors may want to dust off the old drill bits and make some neat looking keychains. "
- "In fact, in a complete turn around from what we've seen in the past, the highest end Core 2 processor is actually the most efficient (performance per Watt) processor in the lineup for WME9. This time, those who take the plunge on a high priced processor will not be stuck with brute force and a huge electric bill."
- "The old Intel lineup of Pentium D processors is truly an embarrassment. Only the Extreme Edition 965 is remotely competitive and even then it can barely outperform the $183 E6300."
- "A trend that we've been seeing all throughout this review is that the performance of these CPUs effectively falls into three groups: Core 2 processors at the top, Athlon 64 X2s in the middle and Pentium D at the very bottom of the charts. In a sense that's the easiest way to classify these three groups of processors: if you want the fastest it's Core 2, mid-range goes to the Athlon 64 X2 and if you don't like good performance there's always the Pentium D. "
- "Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800 didn't lose a single benchmark in our comparison; not a single one. In many cases, the $183 Core 2 Duo E6300 actually outperformed Intel's previous champ: the Pentium Extreme Edition 965. In one day, Intel has made its entire Pentium D lineup of processors obsolete. Intel's Core 2 processors offer the sort of next-generation micro-architecture performance leap that we honestly haven't seen from Intel since the introduction of the P6."
(And note that he was mostly comparing with the Pentium D, i.e. two cores of hotburst garbage. You've only got one core...)

We're now 18 years later (wow), and I think history has completely vindicated these statements. It tells you something that one of the premier CPU reviewers at the time thought (not that jokingly) that the best use for a P4 was as a keychain. Meanwhile, Microsoft is hoping that a lot of C2D/C2Q systems running Windows 10 will finally be e-wasted next year.