Shponglefan wrote on 2024-09-26, 23:11:

If we're comparing a 7800 to an 8800, that's closer to 18 months' difference. 😉

Sure, but the 8800 GTX is also about twice as fast as the 7900 GTX from early 2006.

And again, I don't disagree there is a big leap performance in that time period. It just comes down to goals. If we're forgoing period-correctness and just want super fast performance, why not go beyond Core2 / 8800?

I'm not saying we shouldn't, just that the difference between top of the line hardware from 2005 and 2006 is huge. While from 2007 onward, we see more of an incremental improvement, and not so many drastic jumps within a short timeframe.

I guess it comes down to how much one prioritizes period correctness here.

If OP wants to go strictly period correct for mid-2005, then an Athlon 64 FX / Athlon 64 X2 + 7800 will be the way to go.

If OP wants something close but a bit beyond period correct (e.g. late 2006), then a Core2 E6700 / X6800 + 8800 will offer much more performance.

And if OP forgoes period correctness and just wants raw performance, then something like a Ivy/Sandy bridge i7 + GTX 780 will blow most everything else out of the water.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-09-26, 21:23:

By the same token, a 2007 build will be faster than 2006... and 2008 faster than 2007... and so on and so on.

Faster yes, but not TWICE faster than top configuration from last year for much less money. 2006 was a special year, cumulation of performance leaps from both Intel and Nvidia.

Another special year would be 1998:
- AGP goes mainstream
- Intel 440BX
- Celeron 300A introduced at $150 but quickly sliding to $90 in December 1998.
- Voodoo2 (~$230), Banshee (~$150) and Riva TNT introduced ($200 September 1998, $125 November 1998), Voodoo 1 discounted to <$100.

In 1998 you could buy 2-4 times faster while much cheaper computer than absolute top of the line 1997 monster.

Late 90's in general was a pretty crazy time for leaps in technology.

1999 was another wild year going from a TNT2 to a GeForce 256 DDR in only 9 months.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-09-27, 00:07:

1999 was another wild year going from a TNT2 to a GeForce 256 DDR in only 9 months.

People weren't super impressed by the GeForce 256 when it came out. Per Anandtech's review, it wasn't that much faster than the TNT2 Ultra, at least in contemporary benchmarks with 32-bit color and being bottlenecked by the CPU speeds of the time. The Voodoo 1 -> Voodoo 2 difference was much more pronounced, basically going from 30 to 60 FPS in some games.

I think the GeForce started to shine when the DDR model came along, and after CPUs broke the 1 GHz barrier. But soon after, we got the GeForce 2, which stood out a lot more from its competition.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-09-27, 00:47:

I think the GeForce started to shine when the DDR model came along, and after CPUs broke the 1 GHz barrier. But soon after, we got the GeForce 2, which stood out a lot more from its competition.

That's why I specified DDR model specifically, since it was a decently faster than the initial GeForce. But yeah, if we compare 1999 to 2000 then we're going from TNT2 to GeForce2 GTS in just one year. And then less than a year after that to the GeForce 3 and programmable shaders.

That whole time period was ridiculous at how quickly things improved.

rasz_pl wrote on 2024-09-26, 23:55:

Faster yes, but not TWICE faster than top configuration from last year for much less money. 2006 was a special year, cumulation of performance leaps from both Intel and Nvidia.

In retrospect, 2006 was... the beginning of the end... of the desktop computing boom of the previous ~12 years. A C2D/C2Q on DDR2 (which can go to 8GB easily/affordably) simply did not become obsolete the way everything the previous decade did. For casual productivity use, even web browsing, etc, these things are still usable in 2024 with current software. Indeed, I would argue that what will send those C2Ds/C2Qs to the e-waste pile is more the fact that Microsoft is insisting on some newer CPU instructions (and all the Win11 BS) for newer OSes than those chips actually lacking raw power.

Meanwhile, 2005 was a dark era for Intel fans like me, and perhaps the first period of major-league AMD dominance. (Some fans of the socket 462 Athlons may disagree with me there) Very similar to where we are now with Ryzens, except if anything, Intel is in much, much deeper trouble in 2024 than in 2005. The processors you wanted in 2005 were AMD socket 939, in particular the X2 3800+ launched in May 2005. If you were an Intel fan, you just held on to your aging system, hearing rumours of a prospective gamechanger chip that would restore the natural order of the universe.

The other observation I would make is about peripherals. In particular, say, sound cards. The Creative X-Fi launched in 2005; Vista would basically gut good sound cards in 2007, then Windows 7 would make it even worse (I never figured out how to use hardware wavetable MIDI in Windows 7...). While Creative did launch subsequent generations of sound cards like the SoundCore 3D lineup, the ... excitement... wasn't there anymore.

Same thing with, say, storage. If you have a 2006 system with 4 SATA ports, PCI-E, etc, those are still the current standards. Now, the transition to SATA/PCI-E was more 2004-5, but it really, really landed in 2006. Same thing with networking - I think many enthusiast motherboards in 2004-5 still had 100 megabit Ethernet, by 2006, your enthusiast C2D boards basically all had gigabit Ethernet... which continues to be true today (motherboards with 2.5 gigabit Ethernet are a bit more common now, 10 is still insanely rare).

And really, you can go in a straight line from 2006 to today's era of gaming PCs with no 5.25" bays, no 3.5" bays, no external drive bays at all, and motherboards that are basically designed on the assumption that the only expansion card is a PCI-E GPU. Essentially no cool add-ons came out after 2006, so over time, the ability to add add-ons was removed.

To get back to the OP's question, I think a 2005 system will feel dramatically more retro than a 2006 system. Whether that is desirable or not... that's another question.

I know the C2D had the stones to last a helluva long time, but I don't think top end of P4 was dead all that quickly. Or for that matter high performance socket A, which is what I built in 2005, at huge discounts by then, think the whole thing cost me $120. Anyway, I wasn't feeling any pain for launching game demos, wasn't really buying stuff, until about 2008, with a TbredB at 2.5Ghz and a 4200 at 4600+ speeds and just making a 20k 3DM2k1. So a high end P4 and 7900GT would maybe get to 2009 or so. I got an X2 5600 in 09 and with a 9600GT, and HD4650 that I scored a couple of months later that felt fast enough, but with nothing that wasn't online required, and no physical software in stores any more I really wasn't into gaming any more, plus it was wall to wall FPS.

2006 was indeed a significant year in computing: Core 2 and AM2 were introduced, multi-core CPU became the norm, DDR2 and PCIe graphics completely replaced DDR and AGP graphics, the end of Win9x and the intro of Vista (we're still using its file system today).

Out of curiosity I compared PassMark scores of several CPUs:

Info not listed in the table above:
Announced in month/year: May'05, May'05, July'06, September'12, April'12
MSRP at announcements: $316, $537, $316, $117, $305

Like others have said: 2005 was not a good year to buy hardware. One had to have a loaded wallet to enjoy the fastest (and energy-inefficient) CPU, only to be beaten by Core with almost twice the speed and halved TDP in just 14 months. If period correctness is not an issue then any office-retired Sandy / Ivy Bridge Core i3 can rewrite your WinXP gaming experience in your memory two decades ago while still capable of running most modern software that's not too demanding. i7-3770 was listed for the best possible XP experience (3770K is 3% faster even without O/C but costs 50-100% more than 3770 on used markets).

Last but not least: Combinations of late-775 or 1155 MB + CPU are much cheaper and more plentiful than 939, AM2, 478, or early-775 combos.

I enjoyed reading excellent comments on superiority of 2006 in terms of computer hw evolution. Indeed a great time. However being back in 2005, like in OP case, you had no chance for that, yet I think we must focus on opportunities being available in 2005. Like Op said, closing ones eyes and being back to summer 2005.
For sure my knowledge is way less than previous members, so I'm not able to add more in technical side of discussion.
However, if you don't own a Celeron 500 computer right now I'd recommend to build one together with this 2005 dream computer. It will be a lot of fun to be able to compare these 1:1. You will be able to understand the true difference

Pentium4 has higher temperatures than the Athlon XP. Is that true?

I meant temporal correctness. I would like to have a pc from June 2005. Unfortunately, a lot of old CPUs, graphics cards, and motherboards are expensive.

I would like a powerful PC from 2005, but not necessarily the most powerful. It is important to me that computer parts are easily available and at a friendly price 😀

I'm only interested in games up to 2005. I would like the games to run on high settings and high fps. In 2005 my friends had an Athlon PC but an Xp, not an Athlon 64 X2. But I'd be happy to build a retro PC with the Athlon 64 X2, as long as computer parts are for reasonable money.

Speaking of that I have a question about a different PC configuration, because I talked about my topic with my friend and he said that he has similar "childhood deficiencies".

He used Celeron 466mhz and 64mb ram. In August 2003, his room was renovated. As a 12-year-old, he got new furniture and a bed. But his pc was only upgraded with another 64mb of ram. He reportedly used this PC until the end of 2007. Then he was happy to give the pc to his aunt but got a laptop. It seems he wants to trick his mind like me and build powerful Pc but with computer parts until August 2003.

Can you help?

I also suffered from "childhood deficiencies" with a 486/66 that lasted until 1999 and a PII 400 that lasted until 2006.
Why do you still want to limit yourself and still not be able to play games at full detail?

Keep in mind we play at higher resolutions and expect higher frame rates then we did back in the day and don't even think about enabling things like AA, AF or other driver enhancements.

I find if you want to focus on gameplay your better off going a generation or 2 newer then the game.
I'm not trying to put you off but GTA is a game that'll greatly benefit from a LGA775 build with a half decent PCI-E graphics card and will cost half as much and I suspect be a lot more enjoyable if playing games is the priority over tinkering with old hardware.

Kocyk wrote on 2024-09-27, 05:32:

Pentium4 has higher temperatures than the Athlon XP. Is that true?

Both P4 and Athlon XP had long production periods (Nov'00-Apr'06 and Oct'01-Dec'04, respectively) and many, many different models. Different clock speeds and lithographies could make big differences. The notoriety of hot P4 focused on its 90 nm "Prescott" series with the most numerous models, hence the nickname "PresHOT."

Kocyk wrote on 2024-09-27, 05:32:

I meant temporal correctness. I would like to have a pc from June 2005. Unfortunately, a lot of old CPUs, graphics cards, and motherboards are expensive.

No offense, but you seem to be changing your opinions over and over again. In your third post you replied "I guess I was wrong when I wrote about the best PC of 2005. I had in mind a powerful PC for 2005."

Kocyk wrote on 2024-09-27, 05:32:

I would like a powerful PC from 2005, but not necessarily the most powerful. It is important to me that computer parts are easily available and at a friendly price 😀

Price is not exactly proportional to performance. Ever heard of "zebra striped" Intel 4004?
Museum-pieces aside, a working Voodoo5 5500 on eBay costs more than a modern RTX 4070.

Kocyk wrote on 2024-09-27, 05:32:

I'm only interested in games up to 2005. I would like the games to run on high settings and high fps.

You won't be able to achieve these goals with "not necessarily the most powerful" hardware of 2005. I've been running Quake 3 Arena, a 1999 game, on 2008-2010 hardware, but there can still be low FPS under certain specific situations.

Kocyk wrote on 2024-09-27, 05:32:

In 2005 my friends had an Athlon PC but an Xp, not an Athlon 64 X2. But I'd be happy to build a retro PC with the Athlon 64 X2, as long as computer parts are for reasonable money.

Speaking of that I have a question about a different PC configuration, because I talked about my topic with my friend and he said that he has similar "childhood deficiencies".

Are you (and your friend) trying to purchase / assemble a computer with as similar components of your respective computers two decades ago as possible, or to bring the best possible experience to games of that era? Do you realize that those two are very different approaches and can be contradictory to each other?

For 2005,

Socket 939 Athlon 64 X2 or Dual Core Opteron 1xx
nForce4 or K8T890 motherboard with Socket 939
2GB PC4000 or PC3200 in 2 DIMMs
Radeon X800/X850 PCIe or GeForce 7800/7900 PCIe
X-Fi or Audigy 2/4
Any SATA SSD made after 2010, or if you're feeling authenticity perhaps look for a WD Raptor
A quality modern PSU, probably at least 500W.
Windows XP

For 2003,

Intel 865/875 or nForce 2 400 motherboard
Pentium 4 Northwood ~3.0 GHz (Socket 478) or Athlon XP 2800+ (or faster)
1-2GB PC3200 in 2 DIMMs
Radeon 9700/9800
Audigy 2/4
Some of these motherboards have SATA, otherwise you can get a PATA drive or a SATA/PATA adapter.
A quality modern PSU, probably at least 400W.
Windows XP

Consider the environment: Use a low core² for about half the power consumption. 😉

@swaaye Thank you. This is very helpful.

I honestly thought Northwood 3.0ghz would be recommended for a 2005 PC setup 😀

You recommend a dual-core processor, but which one should I choose?

C2D E8400
C2Q Q9400
i5 2400

I know the i5 2400 is the most powerful of the three, but C2D and C2Q are periodically the best fit.

The question is which is better: E8400 or Q9400.

I know Quad works better on Win10, but WinXp is all about the power of a single core. It's better on C2D.

But maybe I'm wrong?

I watched the gameplay of San Andreas with C2D E8400 and C2Q Q9400 and I am disappointed.

I have seen San Andreas below 30 fps on the above-mentioned CPUs with a GT 710 graphics card at 1280x960 settings, with AA disabled and the highest draw distance settings and the highest visual fx quality settings.

Kocyk wrote on 2024-09-27, 13:21:

I watched the gameplay of San Andreas with C2D E8400 and C2Q Q9400 and I am disappointed.

I have seen San Andreas below 30 fps on the above-mentioned CPUs with a GT 710 graphics card at 1280x960 settings, with AA disabled and the highest draw distance settings and the highest visual fx quality settings.

If your goal is to have maximum possible performance for a Windows XP system, I wouldn't even bother with Core 2. I would go for an Ivy Bridge setup with something like an i7-3770 or 3770k, along with a GTX 780, 970 or equivalent. This is the fastest possible system that is also natively compatible with XP.

I built such a system and it will even run Crysis at 1920x1200 maxed out (DX9) at over 100 FPS. Specs are here: Ultimate Windows XP Build (Intel i7-3770k / GTX 980Ti / 24" Asus ProArt display / X-Fi Titanium)

When building any system, there is always going to be a trade off between period correctness and performance. You'll have to decide what is more important to you.

edited to add:

As noted below, the GT 710 is a pretty bad graphics card. It's not a good card to benchmark performance against.

Kocyk wrote on 2024-09-27, 13:21:

I have seen San Andreas below 30 fps on the above-mentioned CPUs with a GT 710 graphics card at 1280x960 settings, with AA disabled and the highest draw distance settings and the highest visual fx quality settings.

That seems the obvious reason. We would regard that as "basic desktop graphics" here. Though the 710 is better than the 610 at least.

BitWrangler wrote on 2024-09-27, 14:32:

Kocyk wrote on 2024-09-27, 13:21:

I have seen San Andreas below 30 fps on the above-mentioned CPUs with a GT 710 graphics card at 1280x960 settings, with AA disabled and the highest draw distance settings and the highest visual fx quality settings.

That seems the obvious reason. We would regard that as "basic desktop graphics" here. Though the 710 is better than the 610 at least.

That's a good point, the 710 is pretty bottom-of-the-barrel.

Kocyk wrote on 2024-09-27, 13:21:

@swaaye Thank you. This is very helpful. […]
Show full quote

@swaaye Thank you. This is very helpful.

I honestly thought Northwood 3.0ghz would be recommended for a 2005 PC setup 😀

You recommend a dual-core processor, but which one should I choose?

C2D E8400
C2Q Q9400
i5 2400

I know the i5 2400 is the most powerful of the three, but C2D and C2Q are periodically the best fit.

The question is which is better: E8400 or Q9400.

I know Quad works better on Win10, but WinXp is all about the power of a single core. It's better on C2D.

But maybe I'm wrong?

I watched the gameplay of San Andreas with C2D E8400 and C2Q Q9400 and I am disappointed.

I have seen San Andreas below 30 fps on the above-mentioned CPUs with a GT 710 graphics card at 1280x960 settings, with AA disabled and the highest draw distance settings and the highest visual fx quality settings.

The 2005 processors I referred to are dual core.

Out of the ones you listed, the i5 2400 is by far the fastest. That's a Sandy Bridge Socket 1155 processor from 2011.

Windows XP is most definitely capable of multiprocessing. All Windows NT OSs are capable. That's back to Windows NT 3.x from 1993. Windows 9x (95,98,Me) is single core only.

Of the E8400 and Q9400, the E8400 is likely to be faster most of the time because the games you'd run on it probably don't scale well beyond 1 or 2 cores and the E8400 runs at a higher clock speed.

A bigger concern might be that games from prior to ~2006 are not designed with multi-processor systems in mind and you can run into bugs, performance issues and even crashes. With problem games this can be solved by configuring the game's executable with core affinity for a single core, using a program like imagecfg. Games don't start to really benefit from multiple CPUs until after 2006. This was mostly instigated by the arrival of the XBox 360 and PS3 which have multiple very slow CPU cores.