You listed your memory but you didn't say how much, whether xp is 32 or 64 bit.
Run this to speed up disk: http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/downloads.html
Apply PAE patch if 32bit: https://www.techwalla.com/articles/how-to-ena … -bit-windows-xp
add memory
switch to an ssd
switch to a xeon core 2 like a x5460

awgamer wrote:

You listed your memory but you didn't say how much, whether xp is 32 or 64 bit. Run this to speed up disk: http://www.romexsoft […]
Show full quote

You listed your memory but you didn't say how much, whether xp is 32 or 64 bit.
Run this to speed up disk: http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/downloads.html
Apply PAE patch if 32bit: https://www.techwalla.com/articles/how-to-ena … -bit-windows-xp
add memory
switch to an ssd
switch to a xeon core 2 like a x5460

Edited my original post.

4GB of memory and 32bit Windows. No point in any more then 4GB with 32bit and 64bit version of windows you loose compatibility with all those 16bit installers you have to deal with. If I switch to a Xeon I need to completely switchout to a different motherboard. The goal here is not necessarily to build the fastest Windows XP machine possible but to build a machine that is powerful as I would possible need for games that only run on XP. You think I'll need that horsepower on something old enough that I have to run it on XP?

With PAE you're still running 32 bit and primocache sucks up however much memory desired for drive cache, it also takes advantage of more than 4GB without using PAE. I put XP use at 02 to 09, xp came out late 01 and 7 came out july 09, vista I ignore(like everyone does,) and there's a delay before software catches up, hence, 02 to 09. In CPU terms that's from a pentium iv 3.06 to an i7 975, with c2d/c2q having come out in 06 & 07, core 2 is really only about par in performance on the back end. For GPU that's from a ti4600 to a gtx285. According to reviews, GPUs usually don't quite max out games of the same period, so I aim for 2x/sli performance. To save on power means going for a later card that's 2x a gtx285, which is a gtx 580, but since 580s were/are power hogs, a gtx 670/680 is what I would put in an XP setup for lower power SLI performance in a single card.

Now, if you do take Vista into account, it came out late 06(November) so XP would only be 02-06, that's still a c2d and an 8800gtx on the back end, which a single card sli of that would be a gtx 285, which isn't what one would call power efficient but less power than two 8800 gtxs.

Want to post your PSU model number? Chances are if it is even halfway competent you should be fine with a 400watt. The gtx 550 is not very power hungry topping out at 89watts IIRC. Neither is the CPU. Oh if want a CPU upgrade try to search s-spec numbers before you do and make sure to get the 89watt version of the 6000+ not the 115. The higher wattage version will simply not work on a lot of am2 motherboards.

ODwilly wrote:

Want to post your PSU model number? Chances are if it is even halfway competent you should be fine with a 400watt. The gtx 550 is not very power hungry topping out at 89watts IIRC. Neither is the CPU. Oh if want a CPU upgrade try to search s-spec numbers before you do and make sure to get the 89watt version of the 6000+ not the 115. The higher wattage version will simply not work on a lot of am2 motherboards.

Good tip!.

The PSU came with a Diablotek case from Microcenter. It's just like this one actually. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?It … N82E16817822011

The highlight of that machine, IMO, is the SLI motherboard. The nForce 500 is pretty cool. I'm not sure if you're considering SLI, but that would a cool thing to have.

Because some of these processors are very cheap, why not get the top CPU your board supports?

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

The highlight of that machine, IMO, is the SLI motherboard. The nForce 500 is pretty cool. I'm not sure if you're considering SLI, but that would a cool thing to have.

Because some of these processors are very cheap, why not get the top CPU your board supports?

I really like the board and I bought it new ages ago. I never did run SLI. In fact I've never run SLI except for Voodoo2s, I just never was able to justify the cost. It was always a better option to get the next video card generation up rather then buy a second older card. Maybe I'll keep an eye out for a matched pair of video cards on ebay. Might have to settle for a 7,8, or 9 series as once you get the 200 series the price starts going up.

I prolly will max the CPU once I find one I can pickup for cheap. The CPU thatch in there is my original and I ran it a long time so it is somewhat sentimental as well.

Good plan 😀

Don't discount the mainstream cards, like the 9600 GT or GTX 260. They are often just as much fun and usually cheaper and easier to find.

8800GS is way more fun than a 9600GT

Here's an example of what I meant by GPUs not quite maxing out games of the same period, Dirt 2 released in 2009 on a GTX 285 from 2009 at 1080p.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/12/23/dir … image_quality/5

Optimum would be minimum frame rate not dropping below refresh rate at max detail, so 60 FPS on a regular LCD. A single latest and greatest for the time 285 is only managing 30-40s, why I would aim for 2x/SLI performance.

Test system's CPU is a 920 @ 3.6 GHz.

Yes, but a 2009 game I'd be playing on a Windows 7 box to be honest. Doesn't this game support a higher version of DirectX than 9?

It's an example, it applies to any given year, x game released on y year running on z gpu released on y year. This is the trend I've seen when looking up old GPU reviews.

Assassin's Creed from 2008 on a gtx 280 from 2008, mostly in the 40-50s: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2008/06/16/bfg … tx_280_oc_260/9
Elder Scrolls Oblivion from 2006 on an 8800 gtx/2006 & 8800 ultra/2007, 30-50s: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTE3O … U1fM18zX2wuZ2lm

candle_86 wrote:

8800GS is way more fun than a 9600GT

How about one of those qutro cards that used 2 gtx 8800 cores?

A single gpu with 2x the performance is better.

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Yes, but a 2009 game I'd be playing on a Windows 7 box to be honest. Doesn't this game support a higher version of DirectX than 9?

This is what I'm trying to get at. I don't need a video card setup that will play games that I won't even be playing on the rig. Basically, if the game runs on Windows 10. I'll be running it on my main rig for sure. If it has issues running on Windows 10...then I'll go back to Windows XP. I'd like to avoid having another box for Windows 7 if I can though. Further I'll have a highend Windows 98 box for late dos and win9x games, and a dos rig for early dos games.

Rhuwyn wrote:

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Yes, but a 2009 game I'd be playing on a Windows 7 box to be honest. Doesn't this game support a higher version of DirectX than 9?

This is what I'm trying to get at. I don't need a video card setup that will play games that I won't even be playing on the rig. Basically, if the game runs on Windows 10. I'll be running it on my main rig for sure. If it has issues running on Windows 10...then I'll go back to Windows XP. I'd like to avoid having another box for Windows 7 if I can though. Further I'll have a highend Windows 98 box for late dos and win9x games, and a dos rig for early dos games.

Again, dirt 2 was an example to show that the top GPU for that year not running games at full speed that were released in the same year, I later give more examples showing the trend holds for any given year in order to back my suggestion to aim for 2x/sli performance. For example, if you wanted to play Oblivion that was released in 2006 fluidly you'll want to run it on a GPU that's 2x the performance of an 8800gtx that was also released in 2006, since as I've shown, an 8800gtx, the fastest GPU in 2006, only runs Oblivion, from 2006, at 30-50fps, so 2x that will keep your minimum frame rate from dropping below 60 fps. In building one machine to run xp games, it then comes down to what range, I explained why I said 02-09 for xp but do any range you care to, the point I was making is for fluid frame rate you'll want a GPU that's 2x the performance of the fastest GPU of the last year of the range you pick as well as whatever CPU you use be fast enough to feed that GPU.

.

Rhuwyn wrote:

The PSU came with a Diablotek case from Microcenter. It's just like this one actually. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?It … N82E16817822011

You're right to be worried. Diablotek aren't known for quality PSUs, and that looks like one of their cheaper offerings.

Jade Falcon wrote:

candle_86 wrote:

8800GS is way more fun than a 9600GT

How about one of those qutro cards that used 2 gtx 8800 cores?

Which card is that.

The quadro fx 4700 x2. But now that I think of it, it might have used 8800gt