98se questions

[thrasher_565]

so i have an e8600 775 cpu 2core 2 threads 3.33mh cpu. now i no 98se is single core so it will use 1  core and 1 thread but dose it use half the mhz?

would it have been better to use a p4 cpu? single core  2 threads 3.6-3.8? i ordered a 4 P4 651 3.4GHz cpu off ebay as the price was right.

 

my other question is the e8600 has 6mb cash and the P4 651 only has 2mb cash. witch is better for gaming? or dose the 98se not even use the 6mb of cash?

 

 

Edited June 5, 2021 by thrasher_565

[SorryBella]

5 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

so i have an e8600 775 cpu 2core 2 threads 3.33mh cpu. now i no 98se is single core so it will use 1  core and 1 thread but dose it use half the mhz?

No. Intel and AMD rated its base clock speed for each CPU cores. And besides, the IPC improvement from P4 to Core 2 Duo would be pretty substantial anyway to make it a keeper.

[Kilrah]

98 probably won't even run on that, depending on what you have as RAM or GPU. 

[thrasher_565]

1 minute ago, Kilrah said:

98 probably won't even run on that, depending on what you have as RAM or GPU. 

runs fine i have it working.

[thrasher_565]

2 minutes ago, SorryClaire said:

No. Intel and AMD rated its base clock speed for each CPU cores. And besides, the IPC improvement from P4 to Core 2 Duo would be pretty substantial anyway to make it a keeper.

so the e8600 should run at 3.33mhz? in cpuz it dose not show up.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

so the e8600 should run at 3.33mhz? in cpuz it dose not show up.

Which cpu-z version is it?

Try this version instead...

cpu-z_1.03-win9x.zip

[Master Disaster]

33 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

so the e8600 should run at 3.33mhz? in cpuz it dose not show up.

I'm not really sure it actually matters. You're so far above the requirements to run the OS already, adding another few hundred megahertz is not going to make much difference.

 

You should be careful about running SSDs in such an old OS though, 98 obviously is not SSD aware which means no idle garbage collection but even worse than that, if 98 decides to run a scandisk (which it does alot), or even worse a defrag, on the SSD it will chew through read/write cycles.

[8tg]

The real fun is era hardware, running 98SE on what’s effectively windows vista era hardware is a bit excessive.

I don’t think you’ll see any issues with the core2duo, besides that yes it will run a single core and thread, which is still overkill for 98SE and anything that would run on it.

As was just mentioned, don’t use an SSD, and if you are gonna use an SSD use an ide to msata adapter or a dedicated ide SSD because they tend to have controllers on board to manage trim features and such so the OS doesn’t wear down the ssd as much.

 

Spoiler

 

[mariushm]

Yeah it will run at 3.33 ghz ... Would be best to disable one core if you can from bios, and you could probably change FSB to 1066 mhz or 800 Mhz or even 667 Mhz if you can't play with the multiplier.  Right now that cpu is set at 1333 Mhz x 2.5  so you have a 2.5 multiplier, but if you could change the FSB to 800 Mhz then your cpu will run at 2 Ghz

 

You'd probably want 512 MB of memory... technically Windows 98 SE can do 1 GB, but you need to edit ini files

 

See MSKB Q304943

To limit access to 1 GB of RAM on Win98:

To work around this issue, add the following line to the [386enh] section of the System.ini file:

MaxPhysPage=40000
This limits the amount of physical RAM that Windows can access to 1 GB. To add this line, use the following steps:
Use any text editor (such as Notepad) to open the System.ini file in the Windows folder.

Add the following line in the [386Enh] section of the file:

MaxPhysPage=40000
Save the file, and then restart your computer.

 

[Bombastinator]

‘98second edition is really old.  Finding modern software that will run on it may be impossible.  You’ll be limited to older stuff.  Also ‘98 isn’t secure anymore and hasn’t been for a while.  I would run that thing only behind an air gap. my memory is even the slower core 2 duos crushed even much faster  single core processors.  There was a story about a core2duo in the sun 2ghz range beating the pants off a 5ghz single core. Jumps in performance between generations today are often 20% or less.  During that period they were often 40% or more.

[Master Disaster]

4 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

‘98second edition is really old.  Finding modern software that will run on it may be impossible.  You’ll be limited to older stuff.  Also ‘98 isn’t secure anymore and hasn’t been for a while.  I would run that thing only behind an air gap. my memory is even the slower core 2 duos crushed even much faster  single core processors.  There was a story about a core2duo in the sun 2ghz range beating the pants off a 5ghz single core. Jumps in performance between generations today are often 20% or less.  During that period they were often 40% or more.

I think you're kinda missing the point. Doing crazy stuff like this isn't normally something you do to end up with a fully working system, you do it to see if you can and because its crazy. I'm 99% sure OP knows they won't be running modern software on it.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

I think you're kinda missing the point. Doing crazy stuff like this isn't normally something you do to end up with a fully working system, you do it to see if you can and because its crazy. I'm 99% sure OP knows they won't be running modern software on it.

One never knows though.  Could always be someone who found a machine or something.

[thrasher_565]

10 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

‘98second edition is really old.  Finding modern software that will run on it may be impossible.  You’ll be limited to older stuff.  Also ‘98 isn’t secure anymore and hasn’t been for a while.  I would run that thing only behind an air gap. my memory is even the slower core 2 duos crushed even much faster  single core processors.  There was a story about a core2duo in the sun 2ghz range beating the pants off a 5ghz single core. Jumps in performance between generations today are often 20% or less.  During that period they were often 40% or more.

well there both 775 so i was just wondering witch one is faster if they both run 1 core and 1 thread. and if the 6mb cash made any difference. ya the x56 and the 1366 cpus you got an %50 over clock. good times.

 

only care about game performance if that helps.

[thrasher_565]

5 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

I think you're kinda missing the point. Doing crazy stuff like this isn't normally something you do to end up with a fully working system, you do it to see if you can and because its crazy. I'm 99% sure OP knows they won't be running modern software on it.

ya its for gaming only. i will make a xp pc too when i find a good price on x79 and an gtx 970.

[thrasher_565]

4 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

One never knows though.  Could always be someone who found a machine or something.

 

[thrasher_565]

11 hours ago, ShrimpBrime said:

Which cpu-z version is it?

Try this version instead...

cpu-z_1.03-win9x.zip 1.31 MB · 0 downloads

thx ill try that.

Edited June 6, 2021 by thrasher_565

[thrasher_565]

10 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

I'm not really sure it actually matters. You're so far above the requirements to run the OS already, adding another few hundred megahertz is not going to make much difference.

 

You should be careful about running SSDs in such an old OS though, 98 obviously is not SSD aware which means no idle garbage collection but even worse than that, if 98 decides to run a scandisk (which it does alot), or even worse a defrag, on the SSD it will chew through read/write cycles.

well its an $25 ssd but what ide to sata would you recommend. i live in canada.

[thrasher_565]

10 hours ago, 8tg said:

The real fun is era hardware, running 98SE on what’s effectively windows vista era hardware is a bit excessive.

I don’t think you’ll see any issues with the core2duo, besides that yes it will run a single core and thread, which is still overkill for 98SE and anything that would run on it.

As was just mentioned, don’t use an SSD, and if you are gonna use an SSD use an ide to msata adapter or a dedicated ide SSD because they tend to have controllers on board to manage trim features and such so the OS doesn’t wear down the ssd as much.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

so the e8600 is faster then the P4 651on 98se?

 

only for games that all i care about.

Edited June 6, 2021 by thrasher_565

[thrasher_565]

10 hours ago, mariushm said:

Yeah it will run at 3.33 ghz ... Would be best to disable one core if you can from bios, and you could probably change FSB to 1066 mhz or 800 Mhz or even 667 Mhz if you can't play with the multiplier.  Right now that cpu is set at 1333 Mhz x 2.5  so you have a 2.5 multiplier, but if you could change the FSB to 800 Mhz then your cpu will run at 2 Ghz

 

You'd probably want 512 MB of memory... technically Windows 98 SE can do 1 GB, but you need to edit ini files

 

See MSKB Q304943

To limit access to 1 GB of RAM on Win98:

To work around this issue, add the following line to the [386enh] section of the System.ini file:

MaxPhysPage=40000
This limits the amount of physical RAM that Windows can access to 1 GB. To add this line, use the following steps:
Use any text editor (such as Notepad) to open the System.ini file in the Windows folder.

Add the following line in the [386Enh] section of the file:

MaxPhysPage=40000
Save the file, and then restart your computer.

 

there a patch for 1 gig. i was having an hard time finding ddr2 800 256mb and when you do there like $40...

 

ya ill get what cpu setting i have in the bios its not much... posable an program might let me over clock more or smoothing.

Edited June 6, 2021 by thrasher_565

[CerealExperimentsLain]

13 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

You should be careful about running SSDs in such an old OS though, 98 obviously is not SSD aware which means no idle garbage collection but even worse than that, if 98 decides to run a scandisk (which it does alot), or even worse a defrag, on the SSD it will chew through read/write cycles.

This comes up a lot when people talk about SSDs on retro systems and I think it's misguided.  I use a Kingston 128GB A400 in my E5800 powered Windows ME machine fine too  Let's go over a few things:

1) It's Windows 9X, exactly how many writes do you think it does to storage anyway?  I have a 128GB SSD in my system and 128GB is the largest partition FAT32 can even write.  The drive is basically a bottomless pit by Windows 9X standards.  Most Windows 9X games install like maybe 50 megabytes.  You will read the SSD far, far, far, far more than write to it.

2) It's fast as hell.  You have never seen Windows till you've seen it running off an SSD.  My ME build by default didn't enable DMA mode so it ran really slow and it was still stupid crazy cast responsive because the response times were still ultra low and that mattered way more than throughput since files are so small on that software.  Enabling DMA only made it even more amazing.

3) Do you know how cheap suitable SSDs for Windows 9X machines are?  I paid CAD$19.99 on Black Friday for a 128GB Kingston A400 and I got a few spares in a drawer.  I spend more on Sunday night delivery meals.  Who cares even if it did burn out in 2-3 years?

[Kilrah]

A lot of us use CF cards in old machines because of the simple CF-IDE adapters, those don't even have wear leveling and don't die in any meaningful timeframe.

 

98 may not know about SSDs but even if it wrote "a lot" whatever it writes is 1000x smaller than anything done nowadays.

 

Win10, linux etc also all constantly write logs and those are much bigger, but it doesn't matter in the slightest to drive life.