Pentium 4 - Is it considered vintage?

[eightbit]

Recently I restored a Pentium 4 machine that was donated to me a few years ago. When I received it (about a year before the pandemic) and opened the machine I saw it was a P4 2.40C processor and was like "whatever" and stuffed it in storage until last week. I took it out to see what I can do with the thing and it was a trip back to 2004 when my first daughter was born. That said, it's great!

 

I installed XP, updated the BIOS for the board (which is an Intel D865PERL...nice board) cleaned it up (new thermal paste, cleaned all components, etc), added some HDD storage. This board has IDE and SATA so it is one of those boards that was there at the transition of IDE to SATA. It has AGP for video so I stick an ATI 9600SE 128MB AGP card I had in a box into it. Installed the drivers and various software I used to use in those days. Mame, Foobar2000, Media Player Classic, Office 2003....amongst many more. I shouldn't be amazed at how well things run on this from the era since I did have a P4 3.2GHz machine back then, but I am still amazed. This thing is a pleasure to use.

 

These machines are about 20 years old now..just crazy to think about that since it literally feels like yesterday that I had built a "brand new" P4 computer. Also crazy to think that the daughter that was a baby when I built my P4 system is now off to college! 

 

Are we at the stage of the P4 machines considered vintage/nostalgic? Or are they still just "too new"? I'd like to hear others opinions on it!

 

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by eightbit

[Koopa64]

They are definitely still terrible in my mind.

[eightbit]

3 minutes ago, Koopa64 said:

They are definitely still terrible in my mind.

 

Why is that? I am running this 2.40GHz machine and my thoughts are completely the opposite. I am actually really impressed by the performance. 

 

Unless you are expecting it to run software that is much older and not of the period....

 

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by eightbit

[wierd_w]

I feel that the P4 era is kinda redheaded stepchild in nature.

 

Too removed from the 'classic' ecosystem to play nice.

 

Still single core, and doesnt play well with modern stuff at all.

 

 

[eightbit]

3 minutes ago, wierd_w said:

I feel that the P4 era is kinda redheaded stepchild in nature.

 

Too removed from the 'classic' ecosystem to play nice.

 

Still single core, and doesnt play well with modern stuff at all.

 

 

 

I hear you. Had I not received it for the cost of nothing I would not have hunted one down...that is for sure. But now that I have one fully functional it is a great addition to my computer "setups". The plan for me was to first build the 486 of my dreams (which I did and can't be happier!), then move to the best of the Pentium 1 line (I have everything to build a 233MHz pentium now aside a case)....then maybe a PII 450 and then a PIII 1GHz machine to end things. But, this P4 definitely has the ability to bring in some mid-late 2000's goodness.

 

Just the emulation factor alone is worth it. I was playtesting a Mame revision from 2007 (v0.115) and those games run like a dream. I know you can do that on anything now so people might say whatever, but I have always felt emulators were a real test of the CPU performance back in those days. Playing all sorts of games from CPS2, Neo Geo, and other arcade games and having them run so perfectly on this hardware is just great. I got so involved that I sat there for a good two hours playing Mame stuff on the machine and it just felt right.

 

I still have to dive into my software archive and try some actual PC games of that period...which I plan on doing next week for certain.

 

 

[Keatah]

I have my comments. They are so horrible I will have to think about how to tone it down before posting.

[firebottle]

Was the reason these CPUs ran so hot and were so inefficient was because of the emphasis on floating point circuitry (similar to the PowerMac G5s)?

[youxia]

Loving the negative hyperbole here. Only geeks can pile up on something so heavily for so little reason

 

Meanwhile, I've been running a P4 based unit as my MS-DOS/early Win machine for nearly 2 years now and have zero complaints. At first I was thinking about getting something more period-accurate, but then I got this one as a freebie when buying a bunch of monitors, so thought why not give it a go. Sure, for most of DOS games you have to slow it down substantially, but you have to do the same with nearly all out-of-period processors. And for Win games it's perfect.

[Keatah]

13 hours ago, eightbit said:

Are we at the stage of the P4 machines considered vintage/nostalgic? Or are they still just "too new"? I'd like to hear others opinions on it!

Neither. They are considered garbage.

 

12 hours ago, eightbit said:

But, this P4 definitely has the ability to bring in some mid-late 2000's goodness.

If you see goodness here then that's fine.

 

7 hours ago, firebottle said:

Was the reason these CPUs ran so hot and were so inefficient was because of the emphasis on floating point circuitry (similar to the PowerMac G5s)?

The excessive heat was simply trying to run a long 31-stage pipeline too fast. FPU is but a small portion of that bloated design.

 

A properly-designed chip, from that era was the Pentium-M. Many folks mistake it for a Pentium 4, but no. It's really a Pentium 3 with SSE2 and 2MB cache and short (variable-like) pipeline. And a new bus, among various other perks. While the Pentium 4 failed, the Israeli-made Pentium-M became a model of efficiency. And Intel engineers were required to study it. Dothan was so successful it was the basis for Core! I undervolt mine to like 0.6v or 0.7v. And it runs everything from the era with ease. And it's a daily driver today, surfing the web and doing real mission-critical work.

 

Clock for clock PM is like 30-40 percent more efficient than P4. A 1.7GHz PM is equivalent to a 2.4GHz P4. It's that bad. P4 had too many new technologies made to babysit its pipeline.That's where the bloat is.

 

The P4 was a bottleneck for all of Intel at the time. Especially with the RAMBUS fiasco. For the 4 to do anything in a timely fashion it had to have a type of memory that could "stream" data to it. Intel was so desperate they signed a contract with RAMBUS promising they would NOT use any SDRAM or DDR. Eventually it expired and they were free to move on to industry standard SDRAM & DDR.

[Krebizfan]

Fortunately, the Pentium 4 Tejas never got released. The 5 GHz expected clock speed would be fairly good even today (roughly equivalent to a 2.4 GHz i7) but the 200 watts per core would require extremely expensive cooling solutions. The Celeron variants with lower clock speed but still incredibly high power consumption would have set records in poor choices of CPU.

 

For most of the Pentium 4 existence, a Pentium III or Pentium M would give equal performance to all but the highest clocked Pentium 4. The Pentium M tended to be cheaper than the matching Pentium 4 and used a lot less power. Celeron Pentium 4s were just plain terrible chips. The Celeron D could have 84 watt TDP just like the early Prescotts but the Celeron's much smaller cache meant it got half the performance. 

[eightbit]

The Pentium 4 in this machine is actually running very very cool. It's reading at around 27-30C under load. But that could also be because I got rid of the completely dried out old thermal paste and replaced with arctic silver....and the cooler that whomever built this used is pretty extreme. One of the large Zalman heatsinks with an incredibly large fan

 

This P4 variant has HT whereas I know there's another version of the 2.4 that does not. It runs really great so I consider it a keeper. While I am sure it would be a decent gaming platform I plan on using this really for other work. File manipulation, burning discs, etc. It's just like the workhorse I had back in 2004...solid performing.

 

The Celeron...now that is a garbage CPU in my book. The lack of cache just sucked. I had a few laptops at work at the time using those (and some desktops) and the experience was abysmal. 

 

 

[0078265317]

Apple says.

 

Products are considered vintage when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 5 and less than 7 years ago.

 

PC is also about the same.  20 years is def vintage.

[eightbit]

I think its really a matter of expectation.If you are someone thinking you can play "Wing Commander" perfectly on a P4...well no. I think a lot of people getting into "vintage" computers may buy a PIII or a P4 machine and have these expectations of playing much older (or much newer) games perfectly. 

 

Once you realize that you need to be more conscious of period accuracy with the hardware and the software is where you will know what you need for what task. The Pentium 4 era certainly has its place. This processor was the mainstream CPU for around 8 years (from 2000-2008) for consumers, and games/software was tailored for those mainstream P4 machines for most all of that time.

 

I never had issues during that time period where I said "this CPU sucks". It worked great and I played a ton of games in the early to mid 2000's using a custom build Pentium 4 machine that I was really proud of. They were some of the fastest CPU's of the time of course and I saw a really significant performance boost over the PIII 850 that I upgraded from.

 

I think in 5-10 years people will be looking at the Pentium 4 era and the desire for those machines will materialize. Heck, I recall a time not very long ago that people were saying the PIII machines were useless trash...now they are coveted by collectors. The wheel just keeps on turning...

 

At the end of the day this machine is extremely welcome in my house as it stands to be the ONLY machine that can natively run Windows XP that I own....that is without using a VM. And, run it at top performance. That alone makes this machine a keeper.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by eightbit

[eightbit]

9 hours ago, Krebizfan said:

 

For most of the Pentium 4 existence, a Pentium III or Pentium M would give equal performance to all but the highest clocked Pentium 4. 

 

 

Umm...no. I am not sure what Pentium III you are referring to, but I had my main machine at the time which was a PIII 850, and another machine I built with a PIII 1GHz (rare slot 1 CPU with 100MHz FSB). While they were mighty performers, no way they gave "equal" performance. Not quite at all the performance to the first P4 I built. Can't recall how fast that CPU was, but I certainly recall the performance increase.

 

I was a real emulation buff in those days and I remember finally being able to play a LOT of MAME arcade titles at full speed whereas I was not able to on the PIII machines. Those emulated games relied completely on CPU horsepower. It was a real world test of how well the CPU was able to handle...and that P4 did not disappoint at all.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by eightbit

[+OLD CS1]

4 hours ago, 0078265317 said:

Apple says.

 

Products are considered vintage when Apple stopped distributing them for sale more than 5 and less than 7 years ago.

 

PC is also about the same.  20 years is def vintage.

 

First, I hate the misuse of the term "vintage" as a stand-alone description.  That pet peeve aside, the original Pentium 4s were fine.  It was Hyper-Threading which ruined the experience for me.  I realize not all technology is perfect at its first release, but P4 with HT was a damned disaster in every desktop I supported during the era.

 

Should they be considered vintage?  These days "vintage," whether you see it as an improperly-used term or not, is nebulous and arbitrary, so why the frak not?

 

19 hours ago, Keatah said:

I have my comments. They are so horrible I will have to think about how to tone it down before posting.

Some people need to hear stuff.

 

8 hours ago, eightbit said:

The Celeron...now that is a garbage CPU in my book. The lack of cache just sucked. I had a few laptops at work at the time using those (and some desktops) and the experience was abysmal.

The originals were just terrible, but really because they were over-sold in cheap business machines.  Later models, 800MHz and up IIRC, did fine for most basic needs of the day (back when web browsing was not considerably taxing on the CPU.)  But for heavy use in Word, Excel, or QuickBooks, fuggedaboudit.

 

I ran a 1GHz Celeron with 2GB RAM under Windows XP as a machine to play games like You Don't Know Jack and Balls of Steel.  It even turned out to be a good media computer with its S-Video output for watching DVDs and ripped media.

 

 

And, oh man, I completely forgot about RDRAM.

[Koopa64]

On 4/16/2022 at 11:03 PM, eightbit said:

 

Why is that? I am running this 2.40GHz machine and my thoughts are completely the opposite. I am actually really impressed by the performance. 

 

Unless you are expecting it to run software that is much older and not of the period....

 

 

When I say Pentium 4, I am referring to the old ones that used Socket 478, but honestly the LGA 775 ones are not much better.

 

Anyway, take any average Pentium 4, it will be met or exceeded in performance by a Pentium III AND will run much cooler. I really don't like CPUs that run crazy hot and the Pentium 4 is pretty much the brown standard for space heater processors, followed closely by the later Pentium D and the PowerPC G5 series.

 

All that adds up to a wretched processor that runs hot and has poor performance, especially compared to what was available at the same time. The best use I can think of for a P4 desktop or laptop is permanently setting the clock speed really, really low and plugging in a parallel port sound card like a Covox clone or an Adlib clone, relegating the former space heater to low speed MS-DOS tasks to avoid the space heater situation. Remember, heat kills electronics.

 

Man, even a Pentium M runs circles around the Pentium 4 and D, let alone a Core Duo or Core 2 Duo which are just light years ahead, it's not even a fair contest at that point.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Koopa64

[eightbit]

4 minutes ago, Koopa64 said:

When I say Pentium 4, I am referring to the old ones that used Socket 478.

 

Anyway, take any average Pentium 4, it will be met or exceeded in performance by a Pentium III AND will run much cooler. I really don't like CPUs that run crazy hot and the Pentium 4 is pretty much the brown standard for space heater processors, followed closely by the later Pentium D and the PowerPC G5 series.

 

All that adds up to a wretched processor that runs hot and has poor performance, especially compared to what was available at the same time. The best use I can think of for a P4 desktop or laptop is permanently setting the clock speed really, really low and plugging in a parallel port sound card like a Covox clone or an Adlib clone, relegating the former space heater to low speed MS-DOS tasks to avoid the space heater thing.

 

Yeah, mine is a socket 478. The Intel D865PERL motherboard. It doesn't run "crazy hot" nor does it have poor performance in the least. 

 

Maybe the models you had experienced were not properly cooled?

 

[Koopa64]

All of mine had a gigantic heat sink with fan, the prototypical P4 desktop box experience. Granted, all those years ago when I actually used a P4 desktop as a main driver PC, the thermal compound I had was poor, but still these computers would burn right through thermal compound, resulting in an air pocket which made the cooling worse. This was consistent though and always with a P4 computer. I never had cooling issues with earlier or later Intel or even AMD systems, only with the wretched Pentium 4.

 

Who thought it was a good idea to put a P4 in a laptop anyway? I used to have a Dell Latitude P4 laptop, it would sound like a jet engine and be burning hot to the touch if you even dared try to play a decent game on it.

 

P4 computers are a rare situation where I'm happy to see them get sent for e-waste recycling, good riddance. When I see a P4 nowadays, all I can think is, "Atari and Commodore died for this?".

Edited April 18, 2022 by Koopa64

[+OLD CS1]

3 minutes ago, Koopa64 said:

When I see a P4 nowadays, all I can think is, "Atari and Commodore died for this?".

[Keatah]

10 hours ago, eightbit said:

One of the large Zalman heatsinks with an incredibly large fan

A copper flower?

 

10 hours ago, eightbit said:

File manipulation, burning discs, etc. It's just like the workhorse I had back in 2004...solid performing.

That's an excellent use of an XP rig today. I still don't quite like how 10/11 displays file information.

 

10 hours ago, eightbit said:

The Celeron...now that is a garbage CPU in my book.

In general yes. The Celeron 300A was a desirable chip back then. and the Celeron (Pentium III 1400) is also a winner. I have a rig built on one, and the CPU is itself the least-limiting component. But yes, the first Celerons were abysmal.

 

 

[Keatah]

2 hours ago, eightbit said:

I think in 5-10 years people will be looking at the Pentium 4 era and the desire for those machines will materialize.

Yes it will. The appeal of PC platforms and configurations is a moving window. It varies in size, sometimes all the processors in a series are desired. And sometimes it's apex products or 1st run products or anywhere in between.

 

With the 486 it's a DX2-66 or those PowerStacker jobbers. I heard far more talk 3rd party Stackers than I did Intel Overdrives.

 

With 386 it's usually the 25 and 33 MHz variants.

286 is 6 or 12MHz.

And the 8086/8088 rigs are now for the old fart diehards only.

[Keatah]

3 hours ago, Koopa64 said:

Who thought it was a good idea to put a P4 in a laptop anyway?

Well this industry loves throwing shit at the wall. And the P4 is no exception. Nobody cares about practicality, UNLESS it affects sales. Intel was in a race to get the highest clockspeeds. MHz was EVERYTHING in those days. Rumor has it that some samples oc'ed to 8GHz with Nitrogen. Entertaining, but again not useful.

 

I repaired several of those hot'n'heavy bastards and they sure as hell stunk. In more ways than one. Like overheated plastic fumes. Blech!! And I think some of these lappies cost $4000 in a reasonable configuration too.

 

I was also pretty stupid and the P4 was one of my first case mods. Didn't know what the fuck I was doing. And spent monster-sized buckaroos on it. So that's another source of hate. You know.. that maximum pc dream machine nonsense.

 

[Keatah]

3 hours ago, Koopa64 said:

Granted, all those years ago when I actually used a P4 desktop as a main driver PC, the thermal compound I had was poor, but still these computers would burn right through thermal compound, resulting in an air pocket which made the cooling worse.

I never had that problem. Not even with Extreme Edition Northwood 3.4GHz and 2MB cache and 800 bus. Always squirted the white stuff or just a generic silver. And it worked. I had 2 fans going. Zalman had my back. I didn't do any lapping either.

 

4 hours ago, eightbit said:

I was a real emulation buff in those days and I remember finally being able to play a LOT of MAME arcade titles at full speed whereas I was not able to on the PIII machines.

Well that's good. I was able to get full speed on my Tualatin on everything I tried. I only semi-retired the rig because the instruction set was becoming dated. And compilers were moving on. Pentium III IPC was way ahead NetBurst-anything.

 

It's honorable to see an old CPU retired because of being dated. But not honorable if the industry bitched it around while trying to move in the wrong direction.

 

Remember: Lessons learned on PIII transfered to Core. Lessons learned on P4 were thrown out the door.

 

4 hours ago, OLD CS1 said:

I realize not all technology is perfect at its first release, but P4 with HT was a damned disaster in every desktop I supported during the era.

Really? I had a rather transparent experience with HyperThreading. It was there and just seemed to work. It was a novel tech, like out-of-order speculative execution. It was a necessary tech, developed to keep the pipeline full. Eventually it became mature enough to be standard on all of today's mid-range and higher chips.

 

[Keatah]

4 hours ago, eightbit said:

I was a real emulation buff in those days and I remember finally being able to play a LOT of MAME arcade titles at full speed whereas I was not able to on the PIII machines. Those emulated games relied completely on CPU horsepower. It was a real world test of how well the CPU was able to handle...and that P4 did not disappoint at all.

Good emulation always seems to rely only on the CPU. No cheating or simulation or HLE with graphics cards and instruction translation. But such emus take a long long time to develop. And even more testing. Stella was started in 1995 I think. And it achieved the desired accuracy some 20 odd years later. And has even had tweaks since.

 

Thing with a long pipeline processors at high speeds is they can feel very responsive. And it helped that drives and other peripherals weren't too complex yet - when compared to today's stuff.

[+OLD CS1]

6 hours ago, Keatah said:

Really? I had a rather transparent experience with HyperThreading. It was there and just seemed to work. It was a novel tech, like out-of-order speculative execution. It was a necessary tech, developed to keep the pipeline full. Eventually it became mature enough to be standard on all of today's mid-range and higher chips.

In my business environments, yes.  In particular, AutoDesk software, Office 2003 and 2007 especially when working with large Excel data sets, a big accounting package, among others.  IIRC, the problem was two-fold: the compilers were not yet optimized for the HT cores, and the HT cores were far too ambitious and it was much easier to stall a pipeline.

 

I would say maybe around 2008 to 2010 things settled own, but I cannot recall the exact time frame.  Things were definitely well in-hand come the release of Core2.