Which CPU/Mainboard, of these two old systems?

[Calab]

I've got a friend who's computer is quite old - still running Windows 98.
She's just recieved a computer for free and I'm trying to build the best
system from what I have.

PC #1:
- Seanix Columbia III mainboard (BX chipset)
- USB ports MAY be broken.
- Intel Celeron 1Ghz @ 100Mhz bus (Socket 370 in a slotkey adapter)
- 3x128meg = 384meg of SDRAM (the supposed max on this mainboard)
- nVidia MX400 AGP video card
- 60gig IDE HDD
- 40x IDE CDrom
- Currently running Windows 98

PC #2:
- ECS K7S5A v1 mainboard (SiS chipset)
- AMD K7 @ 850Mhz
- 2x256meg = 512meg of SDRAM (Also has 2xDDR slots available)
- ATI Radeon 7000 **PCI** video card
- 2x 80gig IDE HDDs
- LiteOn 1637S IDE DVDRW drive
- PCI 2x USB card
- Currently running Windows XP Home
- This machine had random reboot problems, but since the reinstall of XP it
*seems* stable.

So, looking at the two systems, what is the best way to go with this?

PC#1 has the faster CPU (any features that the K7 is missing?) but it has an
OLD mainboard. It also has memory limitations (I haven't tried the 2x256 in
this board). Being a Slot1 mainboard, upgrades are limited.

PC#2 has the newer mainboard but the slower CPU. Some stuff won't install
here, like DirectX 9 or SilverLight. Being Socket A, I could get a faster
CPU, but what about the media features needed by DirectX or SilverLight,
etc?

Finally, which is the better video card. The AGP nVidia MX400 or the PCI ATI
Radeon 7000?

Thanks for any advice!!!

 

[Grinder]

I've got a friend who's computer is quite old - still running Windows
98. She's just recieved a computer for free and I'm trying to build the
best system from what I have.

PC #1:
- Seanix Columbia III mainboard (BX chipset)
- USB ports MAY be broken.
- Intel Celeron 1Ghz @ 100Mhz bus (Socket 370 in a slotkey adapter)
- 3x128meg = 384meg of SDRAM (the supposed max on this mainboard)
- nVidia MX400 AGP video card
- 60gig IDE HDD
- 40x IDE CDrom
- Currently running Windows 98

PC #2:
- ECS K7S5A v1 mainboard (SiS chipset)
- AMD K7 @ 850Mhz
- 2x256meg = 512meg of SDRAM (Also has 2xDDR slots available)
- ATI Radeon 7000 **PCI** video card
- 2x 80gig IDE HDDs
- LiteOn 1637S IDE DVDRW drive
- PCI 2x USB card
- Currently running Windows XP Home
- This machine had random reboot problems, but since the reinstall of XP
it *seems* stable.

So, looking at the two systems, what is the best way to go with this?

PC#1 has the faster CPU (any features that the K7 is missing?) but it
has an OLD mainboard. It also has memory limitations (I haven't tried
the 2x256 in this board). Being a Slot1 mainboard, upgrades are limited.

PC#2 has the newer mainboard but the slower CPU. Some stuff won't
install here, like DirectX 9 or SilverLight. Being Socket A, I could get
a faster CPU, but what about the media features needed by DirectX or
SilverLight, etc?

I would go with motherboard #2. Don't sweat the processor--clock speed
isn't everything. Celerons from that era, if I remember correctly, were
pretty stunted so the Athlon may well just out perform it.

Finally, which is the better video card. The AGP nVidia MX400 or the PCI
ATI Radeon 7000?

They're pretty close to each other. I would probably benchmark both
cards in motherboard #2.

I've never had a problem with an ECS board, but then again, I've never
owned one. I know there were some problems a few years ago with bad
capacitors, or something, that's embittered some consumers.

Keep motherboard #1 in a box incase motherboard #2 goes belly up, and
send me the old case--I have a craptastic motherboard (currently in a
box) that needs a home.

 

[Derek]

I've got a friend who's computer is quite old - still running Windows 98.
She's just recieved a computer for free and I'm trying to build the best
system from what I have.

PC #1:
- Seanix Columbia III mainboard (BX chipset)
- USB ports MAY be broken.
- Intel Celeron 1Ghz @ 100Mhz bus (Socket 370 in a slotkey adapter)
- 3x128meg = 384meg of SDRAM (the supposed max on this mainboard)
- nVidia MX400 AGP video card
- 60gig IDE HDD
- 40x IDE CDrom
- Currently running Windows 98

PC #2:
- ECS K7S5A v1 mainboard (SiS chipset)
- AMD K7 @ 850Mhz
- 2x256meg = 512meg of SDRAM (Also has 2xDDR slots available)
- ATI Radeon 7000 **PCI** video card
- 2x 80gig IDE HDDs
- LiteOn 1637S IDE DVDRW drive
- PCI 2x USB card
- Currently running Windows XP Home
- This machine had random reboot problems, but since the reinstall of XP
it *seems* stable.

So, looking at the two systems, what is the best way to go with this?

PC#1 has the faster CPU (any features that the K7 is missing?) but it has
an OLD mainboard. It also has memory limitations (I haven't tried the
2x256 in this board). Being a Slot1 mainboard, upgrades are limited.

PC#2 has the newer mainboard but the slower CPU. Some stuff won't install
here, like DirectX 9 or SilverLight. Being Socket A, I could get a faster
CPU, but what about the media features needed by DirectX or SilverLight,
etc?

Finally, which is the better video card. The AGP nVidia MX400 or the PCI
ATI Radeon 7000?

Thanks for any advice!!!

I'd say the MX400
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/vga-charts-ii,review-604-3.html is marginally
quicker but for some applications its closer than a snail is to the ground
(compare the benchmark relevant to you) The difference between the
processors is also pretty marginal as the K7 performs better at given
clockspeeds than the Celerons. I think on the whole I'd prefer a newer board
the BX was good in its day but more memory is a big big plus in Windows
and old K7's are as cheap as chips so you have the chance to add a bit more
speed the only thing that niggles me is the relationship between ECS and
Pcchips (same company)
Derek

 

[Paul]

I've got a friend who's computer is quite old - still running Windows
98. She's just recieved a computer for free and I'm trying to build the
best system from what I have.

PC #1:
- Seanix Columbia III mainboard (BX chipset)
- USB ports MAY be broken.
- Intel Celeron 1Ghz @ 100Mhz bus (Socket 370 in a slotkey adapter)
- 3x128meg = 384meg of SDRAM (the supposed max on this mainboard)
- nVidia MX400 AGP video card
- 60gig IDE HDD
- 40x IDE CDrom
- Currently running Windows 98

PC #2:
- ECS K7S5A v1 mainboard (SiS chipset)
- AMD K7 @ 850Mhz
- 2x256meg = 512meg of SDRAM (Also has 2xDDR slots available)
- ATI Radeon 7000 **PCI** video card
- 2x 80gig IDE HDDs
- LiteOn 1637S IDE DVDRW drive
- PCI 2x USB card
- Currently running Windows XP Home
- This machine had random reboot problems, but since the reinstall of XP
it *seems* stable.

So, looking at the two systems, what is the best way to go with this?

PC#1 has the faster CPU (any features that the K7 is missing?) but it
has an OLD mainboard. It also has memory limitations (I haven't tried
the 2x256 in this board). Being a Slot1 mainboard, upgrades are limited.

PC#2 has the newer mainboard but the slower CPU. Some stuff won't
install here, like DirectX 9 or SilverLight. Being Socket A, I could get
a faster CPU, but what about the media features needed by DirectX or
SilverLight, etc?

Finally, which is the better video card. The AGP nVidia MX400 or the PCI
ATI Radeon 7000?

Thanks for any advice!!!

If it won't boot stable, what would be the point building a computer
with computer #2 ? If your friend is not computer literate, or handy with a
screwdriver, then stability should be your first concern. Otherwise,
you'll be called over to fix computer #2, over and over again.

To me, it looks like moving the PCI USB card from computer #2 to
computer #1, solves all the problems.

If you're going to try installing WinXP on computer #1, I'd use the
install CD that came with computer #2. I would disconnect the original
Win98 OS boot hard drive, and connect a clean drive to computer #1,
then install WinXP. If the installation experiment is a failure
for some reason, you can always connect the original OS boot disk,
back to the 440BX motherboard.

Paul

 

[Grinder]

I'd say the MX400
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/vga-charts-ii,review-604-3.html is marginally
quicker but for some applications its closer than a snail is to the ground
(compare the benchmark relevant to you) The difference between the
processors is also pretty marginal as the K7 performs better at given
clockspeeds than the Celerons. I think on the whole I'd prefer a newer board
the BX was good in its day but more memory is a big big plus in Windows
and old K7's are as cheap as chips so you have the chance to add a bit more
speed the only thing that niggles me is the relationship between ECS and
Pcchips (same company)

I did not know that. Ok, Calab, that's a point against ECS as I have
had experience with a PCChips board and would not hasten to recommend
it. That said, though, you already have the ECS board, and it does
outperform (on paper at least) your other choice.

 

[Grinder]

Heck , if the 2nd machine has a working installation of XP on it...
I'd go with that one. (Providing it stays stable)

XP is way better than win98,
plus it has two HD's

Though the 850 mhz AMD cpu is a bit slower in "mhz" it's a better CPU than
the Celeron
so should be as good or better.

If the 2nd board has any empty ram slots
you may be able to use some from the other machine.

BTW: ECS is not always considered the best mobo,
but I had one once and it only had one minor glitch:

In the winter, it was pretty prone to static discharge
and I had to make sure I had grounded myself
prior to plugging in a USB device.

If I shuffled across the carpet and plugged in a USB device
without first grounding myself, the machine would sometimes reboot!

Shuffling and "rebooting" is a sign of old age--are you sure it wasn't
just "operator error?"

 

[marslee]

I won't pick PC #2:with ECS K7S5A v1 mainboard (SiS chipset).
I have three different versions of ECS K7S5A; version1 , ver3.1 and
ver3.1B. All three have bad caps. They use either G-luzon(green) or
OST(purple). OST seems to last longer,but it will be matter of time
before any G-luzon or OST become bad.
The ECS K7S5A is notoriously for bad design, losing cmos data,
draining out battery in short time(3-6 days), won't boot after
reset. I recap all three versions and all still have the cold boot and
losing cmos issue.

 

[Calab]

I've got a friend who's computer is quite old - still running Windows 98.
She's just recieved a computer for free and I'm trying to build the best
system from what I have.

Thanks for all the input folks!

Some replies, in no particular order...

I honestly had no idea what kind of performance the Radeon 7000 had,
especially being PCI. I guessed that they were pretty close, but wanted some
verification.

I considered PC#2, even though it was unstable, because it could be memory
or video card, which could be switched out. It also had the ability to use a
faster CPU when I found one.

I've had a few ECS and PCChips mainboards. They're cheap and will do in a
pinch.

In the end it all became moot. I found a working 1.3Ghz AMD machine for $40.
It was complete except for a hard drive. Even had 6800GT video card. The
system is up and running beautifully.

Now I'm harvesting PC #2 for parts to add to PC #1. 2x256meg work. Got the
DVDRW and ATI video card as well as the PCI USB card. The only issue I see
is that it appears that the 1Ghz CPU is only running at 500Mhz (highest the
MB can do). Plenty fast for Win98SE with 512meg of memory and only used for
internet stuff.

 

[Paul]

Thanks for all the input folks!

Some replies, in no particular order...

I honestly had no idea what kind of performance the Radeon 7000 had,
especially being PCI. I guessed that they were pretty close, but wanted
some
verification.

I considered PC#2, even though it was unstable, because it could be memory
or video card, which could be switched out. It also had the ability to
use a
faster CPU when I found one.

I've had a few ECS and PCChips mainboards. They're cheap and will do in a
pinch.

In the end it all became moot. I found a working 1.3Ghz AMD machine for
$40. It was complete except for a hard drive. Even had 6800GT video
card. The system is up and running beautifully.

Now I'm harvesting PC #2 for parts to add to PC #1. 2x256meg work. Got
the DVDRW and ATI video card as well as the PCI USB card. The only issue
I see is that it appears that the 1Ghz CPU is only running at 500Mhz
(highest the MB can do). Plenty fast for Win98SE with 512meg of memory
and only used for internet stuff.

http://www.seanix.com/downloads/Manuals/columbiaiii_english_manual.pdf

If the slocket has an option to jumper the bus speed, try jumpering it
to 100MHz. It could be, if the Seanix sees 133MHz, it defaults to 66MHz.
If the slocket has jumpers for the FSB, try fiddling with them and set
them to 100MHz. You may be able to run at 2/3rds of full speed, rather
than 1/2.

The multiplier jumpers shouldn't do anything, so you shouldn't have
to adjust them.

Paul

 

[~misfit~]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Grinder" typed:

I would go with motherboard #2. Don't sweat the processor--clock
speed isn't everything.

You'd go with an SIS over a BX?

Each to their own I guess. IMO the BX was the best chipset Intel made in a
decade. I've never had an SIS I was impressed with.
--
Shaun.

DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)