processors: how slow can you go?

**johnnm** · 03-21-2006, 06:19 PM

I'm thinking about building a desktop based system. The two most strenuous activities I think I'll have it doing is DVDs and SNES emulation. I noticed some people using Pentium IIIs, etc. My question is, what's the worst processor I could get (Intel or AMD, preferably an opinion on both) that would still suffice for these activities. I see some Athlons, Athlon MPs, and Athlon XPs on the AMD side, but I wasn't into the computer scene during these processors primes so I really have no idea how they perform. Any suggestions, tips, or comments would be appreciated. Thanks!

**fooshizn1x** · 03-21-2006, 08:10 PM

I'd say that if your building a desktop system you could go as slow as 600mhz as long as you had like a 32 meg agp card for dvd playback. I dont understand why somebody would want such a slow computer for car usage, but thats not my decision, only my opinion. If money is your issue, you could start by buying piece by piece.. believe me, no matter which route you go, its not as cheap as you originally planned... good luck though!

**PCModifiers** · 03-21-2006, 08:21 PM

Intel 486SX

**piabu** · 03-21-2006, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by fooshizn1x

I dont understand why somebody would want such a slow computer for car usage, but thats not my decision, only my opinion.

Lower power consumption. Less heat generated. Good reasons for underclocking the CPU as well.

**senseless228** · 03-21-2006, 08:32 PM

a faster mobile processor would generate less heat, and consume less power, while being a comparable process, compared to the older processors...but there is a price difference

**Wiredwrx** · 03-21-2006, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by johnnm

I'm thinking about building a desktop based system. The two most strenuous activities I think I'll have it doing is DVDs and SNES emulation. I noticed some people using Pentium IIIs, etc. My question is, what's the worst processor I could get (Intel or AMD, preferably an opinion on both) that would still suffice for these activities. I see some Athlons, Athlon MPs, and Athlon XPs on the AMD side, but I wasn't into the computer scene during these processors primes so I really have no idea how they perform. Any suggestions, tips, or comments would be appreciated. Thanks!

Well, the best thing to do would be decide what OS you want to use, and what Applications you will use, and then find out what the minimum requirements are. If you use win95 as an OS (why, I don't know, but you could technically) and some old school MP3 APPS, you could get away with a 486 (one of my first "carputers) was a 486DX100, and all it did was use dos and something called MXPlay or something like that.

Now, for XP, they tell you what they expect, and most APPs these days tell you the minimum specs, start there.

Michael

**Haystack** · 03-21-2006, 09:10 PM

windows 95 wouldnt play dvd's for me. 233mhz is smooth as silk with dvd's, a decoder card, a 4 mb video card and 32 megs of ram. oh, amd's were way better back in the day. that same processor clocked at 450mhz running a pentium test

**djXternal** · 03-21-2006, 09:43 PM

Ive ran a 500Mhz celeron, 128Mb RAM and it ran just fine

**johnnm** · 03-21-2006, 09:54 PM

The reason I'm asking is because if possible I'd like to use DC-DC power supply, but that's going to require me using a low power CPU. I believe the lowest power desktop CPUs available at the moment are ~60W. I thought about using a Pentium M proc in a desktop mobo (they exist), but those mobos run near $200.