วีดีโอ

@@Felix_Fausto554 Just don't use it on Desktop Motherboard, it will run at half speed.

Everything tested in that chart does benefit. I will explain: So DDR Is seen in BIOS and CPU-z at half speed because it is the way it works. Double Data Rate functions so: 100Mhz is in fact DDR200. DDR-200 (PC-1600)100 MHz=1,6 GB/s[2 x 100 x 8-byte(64-bit)] DDR-266 (PC-2100)133 MHz=2,1 GB/s(2 x 133 x 8) DDR-333 (PC-2700)166 MHZ=2,7 GB/s(2 x 166 x 8) DDR-400 (PC-3200)200 MHz=3,2 GB/s(2 x 200 x 8) FSB Bandwidth is this: For example, a 64-bit (8-byte) wide FSB operating at a frequency of 100 MHz that performs 4 transfers per cycle has a bandwidth of 3200 megabytes per second (MB/s): 8 bytes/transfer × 100 MHz × 4 transfers/cycle = 3200 MB/s 100Mhz x4(Quad Pumped Bus FSB) = 400FSB x 8 = 3.2GB/s 133Mhz x4(Quad Pumped FSB)=533 FSB x 8 = 4256Mb/s or 4.25 GB/s 200Mhz x4(Quad Pumped FSB)=800SFB x8 = 6.4Gb/s So for a 400FSB (3.2GB/s) you need : DDR400 (200Mhz x 2 because Double Data Rate) in Single Channel or DDR200(100Mhz x 2 ) in dual channel configuration 1,6GB/s x 2 = 3.2Gb/s For 533FSB (4256MB/s) you need : DDR533 that is DDR2 for single channel to fill the bandwidth (266Mhz x 2 because double data rate) or DDR1 Dual Channel DDR266 (133Mhz x 2 double data rate) x 2 (dual channel)=4.25GB/s There is also Intel FSB of 667 for some CPUs that would be DDR2 667 in Single Channel or DDR1 in Dual Channel DDR333(166Mhz x 2) x 2 (for dual channel) = 5.3GB/s and FSB800: DDR2 800 (400Mhz x 2 because DDR ) in Single Channel = 6.4GB/s DDR1 400(200Mhz x 2 because DDR) x 2 for dual channel = 6.4GB/s so in conclusion for the full bandwidth of those FSB you should use DDR2. in Single channel for FSB 533/800. the dual channel DDR1 was enough up to 800FSB anyway you can still run it single channel even with DDR1 by using other FSB to RAM ratio,the motherboard bios will set it up for you. Usually the speed in dual channel drops as in this case and also LGA 775 they won't use full DDR400 because it favors faster timings so unless there is 800FSB it will not run DDR400 from bios default settings.

Check 4:35 Channel says Dual Speed is 166Mhz(DDR333) FSB to RAM ratio = 4:5 Also what you see with Prescott is something diffrent,It is the bigger L1 cache compared to Northwood and Willamette.

@@VPRHPC It would be nice to see the performance difference between single and dual channel on Pentium 4.

@@patrickc8007 I made one the first time I moved to DDR with the benchmarks. th-cam.com/video/79MFR40dzUM/w-d-xo.html

O sa fac un video cu unu de 2.8 ca am noroc sa am si eu acum l-am gasit :)

Asta ii cel mai rapid Northwood pe 533 FSB care ii 1 Core 1 Thread., Cele pe 800 FSB Sunt cu Hyperthread.

@@Bluebery_Pickle thank you for the appreciation.

The response of Tualatin cannot be explained through words indeed, you can only experience it. The same feelings I had when I benchmarked the Tualatin 1.26Ghz.

Thanks for pointing the HZTool,I have a Dell ''TRINITRON'' CRT P791 that can do 140hz ,also does W98 have any limit on clock speed ,there was some info that 2.1Ghz is the max Safe clock speed. Wiki ''Limitations. The original release of Windows 98 may fail to boot on computers with a processor faster than 2.1 GHz. Windows 98 is only designed to handle up to 512 MB of RAM without changes.''

@@VPRHPC I didn't had any problems with this cpu with 98SE. I even haven't used there any patches for that there. As for refresh rate I had a problem that NVIDIA driver pushed 240 Hz refresh rate at OpenGL games, HZTool worked good with 30.82 driver.

It's a very good CPU, and with the spec you mentioned it was definitely a great experience for back in the day.

@@VPRHPC Yeah people slate the P4s because Netburst did suck compared to the P3 (clock for clock). But they were okay. It was a solid machine, handled everything. Never felt like I needed to upgrade to a faster P4. I waited it out until Athlon 64's were extermely cheap and being phased out before I upgraded.

@TheVanillatech I think people had it a little wrong with Netburst, I can't tell what chipset you had on the Optiplex but 400 FSB compared to 133 FSB, meaning all the data between all types of devices not just clock for clock memory access comparison with P3s, 400 FSB was equal to DDR 400 (3.2gb/s), P3s had 133 FSB with 1.06gb/s,so The Internet if Dial Up/LAN/RAM Memory Access Bandwidth /USB/HDD everything was better on Netburst, I tested this one really retarded, limited to 133 MHz RAM (being SDRAM) I am sure it will get better, same as the Chronological order of chipset with faster RAM to feed the fast FSB.

@@modernandretrogaming And they are 333 FSB?

@@VPRHPC Yes, with Barton core, one worked without problems with 200 Mhz FSB. But I'm not a fan of OC anymore, I like to run everything at stock.

As you can see Intel needed a few generations to get neck in neck with AMD and I hope I will soon be able to benchmark the evolution of the Motherboards also and see how it goes to the maximum output of the CPUs.

Let me know if you do, you might have some treasures also, I made the videos cuz you never know when they stop working with this age.

Da, si eu am avut noroc cu bunicu Dumnezeu sa-l ierte, ca si a facut rate sa imi cumpere o unitate de 70 mil in 2001 cu un Athlon XP 2000 + de la un 486 de 66Mhz cu 12 MB Hard Disk, tin minte ca stergeam fisiere din win 95 sa am loc de o melodie mp3 de 3mb... si aia descarcata cu 4kb/s de pe Dial Up de Romtelecom..

Yes, you are right when it comes to using it for office work, I do have a 2.66Ghz Northwood with HT that is mobile but it has some frequency multiplier for power consumption and if you install it in the Desktop Motherboard it will only run half speed.

@@VPRHPC My Mobile Celeron 2.2 (from dead Dell laptop) worked for me at full frequency as you can check on one of my videos. That could be interesting to see such cpu with half of its clock to see how it will try to perform.

@@modernandretrogaming thanks for the hint sir, I thought it was because of the Video Card being too new for it.

@@KimPossibleShockwave thanks for feedback, I will try to remedy it for the next videos.

@@VPRHPC Not a problem, bud! Looking forward to the next video!

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 Da, destul de ciudat ca nu am auzit lucruri asemanatoare de la alte reviews, parca ii bine si sa le faci cu mana ta sa vezi rezultatele.

@@PhiTaNguyen I will soon upload the Benchmarking, it is still in Progress, let's see the truth.

@@VPRHPC i would love to see

That means you are using a 90nm Prescott with 2Mb of L2 Cache and 800 Mhz FSB, with Dual Channel DDR and AGP 8x that is way newer than this configuration.

@@VPRHPC Yes best case scenario. Although prescott has the disadvantage of having an even longer pipeline.

@@VPRHPC The score went up with 2k just by disabling unneeded ports in bios like serial, parallel, usb and ethernet.

SDRAM caused lowered result for this cpu. Pentium IV based cpu's best to use with fast RAM.

@ yes but all the other CPUs were also tested with SDR, that’s why it was tested this way.

Honestly I hope it will be better with DDR, also I am a little bit confused with the FSB, for example the 400 FSB would need DDR 400 to have the max bandwidth of 3.2GB/s of the FSB and that might Require Dual Channel which would not be fair yet to compare with the K7 with 266 DDR and 333 DDR

There is beauty, knowledge and so much to learn in this.

Only 256Kb L2 Cache, compared to the Tualatin's 512 Kb which helps a lot with the slow SDRAM. Athlons only came with 512Kb in the 130nm Core.

Mersi, inca este nou canalul:)

Am adunat de 10 ani 😅, o sa le prezint cat de cat cronologic, este prima oara si pentru mine cand le testez cu adevarat capacitate de performanta, si cat despre Willamette cred ca mai este potential de deblocat cu DDR, Dual Channel, AGP 8x.

@@enchantedbypower The GPU can do way better, the CPUs and the Motherboards are not yet powerful enough.

Dar Celeron Tualatin e din 2002 si mare atentie ca SDRAM nu poate sa duca totalul de FSB care il genereaza CPU asta,e limitat la banda de SDRAM PC 133 care are 1.06GB/s cat are totalul de 133 Mhz FSB la Intel.

​@@VPRHPC La aceasi frecventa si ambele cu SDR cred ca un Celeron Tualatin ar trebui sa fie la fel de rapid ca si Duron-ul sau chiar putin peste.

Este o singura diferenta, A basic shrink of Coppermine, no new features were added, except for added data prefetch logic similar to Pentium 4 and Athlon XP for potentially better use of the L2 cache, although its use compared to these newer CPUs is limited due to the relatively smaller FSB bandwidth (FSB was still kept at 133 MHz).[

Si chestia aia cu data prefetch logic este dezactivata la Celeron Tualatin

@@modernandretrogaming I'm working on the follow up and I promise you that the AMD will be treated with the same attention. About the GPU you have good knowledge about PNY, but I Choose this one because It has a large amount of ROPs for the AGP era even tho it has a PCI-Express to AGP bridge, but I am curious to see who will be the one to get the most out of it as it is only a DirectX 9 GPU.

@@VPRHPC You can also try even Titan Quest, I tried this game years ago on PC with Duron 1200 and GeForce 6200 AGP and it ran pretty good. Gothic II could be great to try especially at city Khorinis and Valley of Mines, there could be great difference in performance between that places.

​@@modernandretrogamingI kept trying Titan Quest but I'm not sure if my version is not too demanding, cuz it is nowhere to be played with the fps I get.

@@VPRHPC I played that time version with Immortal Throne addon. It should work. Only can slow sometimes a little at some physics like flying corpses of defeated monsters. RAM should not be a problem mostly, it could be some swapping sometimes but it should be playable. When I tried Celeron 2.7 (one with 128 KB L2) with DDR overall fps were lower than with Duron 1200 but physics wasn't problem. It was very strange behavior.

Ma bucur ca ai remarcat acest detaliu subtil, asta ma impresioneaza si pe mine si eram interesat sa vad SSE in functiune nu doar in Win 98 unde este destul de limitat, si BTW World of Warcraft Wrath of the Lich King este din 2008 si pe internet prin 133 FSB!!

@@VPRHPC am avut si eu un sistem P3 1000 mhz Coppermine cu placa de baza Apollo 133A dar din pacate l-am vandut pe vreo 150 lei acum 3-4 ani, mare prostie am facut. Acum am un sistem cu placa de baza 815EP si printre procesoarele pe care le am, folosesc si un Tualatin 1000 mhz (7.5x133), e doar putin mai rapid decat Coppermine-ul cu aceleasi parametri.

What specs do you have on the laptop?

@@modernandretrogaming The performance with this kind of hardware is keeping me not to use any overlays, but I am considering it because the capture card lags sometimes and that doesn't happen on the PC that is the recording source. Thanks for the hint.

Am incercat odata sa il pornesc cu un Radeon HD7450 pe ceva build de XP si am setat AA din optiuni,a fost cel mai frumos Carma2 ce l-am vazut,nu stiu vre-o metoda sa schimbi rezolutia,dar varianta cu Anti-aliasing pe o placa mai noua a fost cel mai bun lucru ,o sa mai vad daca pot gasi una de compatibilitate ca foarte multe fac glitchuri in Carma2 si chiar si GeForce FX5000/FX6000

Exista placi de baza pentru Tualatin cu DDR Ram, dar greu de gasit, tare as vrea sa vad cat de bun ar fi cu una:)

@@VPRHPC eu doar cu SDR am, nu am stiut ca sunt si cu DDR pt P3 Tualatin. P3 Tualatin din cate am vazut in teste, e ceva mai rapid decat un Athlon Xp la acelasi rating PR si tot cu SDR bineinteles. Si Celeron cu nucleu Tualatin au fost foarte reusite, la performanta din cate am vazut, tot asa putin mai rapide decat Duron la aceasi frecventa si tot cu SDR bineinteles.

Doar P3 Katmai cred ca se tine cot la cot cu el,poate il si intrece pe Celeron in unele softuri/jocuri .

@@VPRHPC Celeron-ul cu nucleu Coppermine era practic un Pentium 3 Coppermine castrat, cu doar 128 mb cache in loc de 256 mb la P3 si doar FSB 66 in loc de 100 sau 133 la P3.

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 acum lucrez la el, poate maine il termin :D