The intel 6 series chipsets for Sandy/Ivy Bridge, such as the Z68, have Windows XP (x86/x64) drivers. Works fine. Don't know about later chipsets.

gerwin wrote:

The intel 6 series chipsets for Sandy/Ivy Bridge, such as the Z68, have Windows XP (x86/x64) drivers. Works fine. Don't know about later chipsets.

Thanks! 😀

By the way, I found that Asus P8Z77-I DELUXE a Z77 chipset mini-ITX mobo, does support Windows XP. Anyone experienced with it? My primary concern is disabling its integrated graphics. I hope such ITX mobo still have the feature.

Nice! It also has WHQL SATA drivers for Windows XP as well. 😀

Nice, I haven't found any known problems of using the Asus mini ITX mobo with dedicated graphics - except this one, which is PEBKAC.

Guess I'm good to go, but warnings and suggestions are welcome.

Aw shoot.

This is the Asus Mini-ITX motherboard:

And this is the GeForce GTX 285, which is a dual-width card.

It seems the card won't block anything on the motherboard itself, but the other side will protrude outside the mobo's boundary. Guess my next constraint would be the mini-ITX casing.

Just wanted to clarify some things on the graphics hardware:

GTX 285 is not Kepler; it's GT200 (supposedly (e.g. according to Wikipedia) retroactively "Tesla" but I've never actually heard nVidia folks call GT200 (or G9x/G8x) "Tesla" - it was always GT200/G92/G80 in publications back in the day, at least that I saw). Kepler is the very newest nVidia architecture, starting with GeForce 600 series, and continuing with GeForce 700 series (except 750); GK10x chips. "King Kepler" is found on the GTX 780 or Titan parts (more technically the 780 Ti or Titan Black; Quadro K6000 could also probably throw its (*very expensive*) hat into that ring too).

More information from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Kepler_Architecture
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia-kepler.html

Kepler will have an advantage over GT200 (and the later Fermi) in terms of power efficiency, and therefore heat/noise production, but they are much newer cards (you can still buy most of them brand new). For example the GTX 660 has a TDP of around 140W, and is held by nVidia (and confirmed by external benchmarks) to be roughly equivalent to the GTX 580 (a Fermi card) in terms of performance. The GTX 580 has a 244W TDP per nVidia. The modern top dogs like GTX 770 or 780 will use slightly less power than that, and are notably faster in all regards. They will also run much cooler at idle. Here's an info slide from nVidia that shows relative performance differences:

(image is taken from this page: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/ … 780/performance)

Regarding what you have in the laptop - the GeForce 300 series is an odd duck; they're mostly OEM products based off of GT2xx (GeForce 200). Wikipedia says the GT310M is a GT218, which is reportedly the same chip under the GeForce 210 and 205. At one point in time GeForce 210s were fairly inexpensive PCIe add-in cards; I think the 205 was an OEM thing. You could probably find either of them on eBay, and honestly if that's enough performance for your needs, why not just stick with that? I remember some of them even run passively.

If you wanted to stay within the GT200 family, but go with something faster, you'd want to constrain your search to the "entry level" parts, 205/210/220/240, and the "enthusiast" parts, 260/275/280/285. The remaining mid-segment GeForce 200 cards are G9x based (not that there's anything wrong with that, but if you want to stick to the GT200 those cards wouldn't be it, per se). In general I would say G9x should be fine for what you want to do as well. In addition to the midling GeForce 200s (like GTS 250), the GeForce 9 series and some GeForce 8 series (8800GS, GT, and the 512MB 8800GTS) cards belong to that family. Also keep in mind that the GTX 285 is a fairly power hungry and hot-running card, even by modern standards.

Some other thoughts, unrelated to the graphics:

- If you don't absolutely need the size of an ITX system, I'd go with mATX personally. It'll open you up for more expansion, case, etc options and the build won't likely be much bigger. It may also mean a cheaper motherboard. Also keep in mind that some ITX cases won't fit standard ATX PSUs, and you will likely need to go with an ATX PSU for the GTX 285 (per nVidia, it requires a minimum of a 550W PSU with two 6-pin PCIe power connectors, and has a total card TDP/consumption of 204W). As you've already noted, the dual-slot card is also a potential problem for some ITX cases.

- Some older games will have compatibility issues with multi-core processors, even running under Windows XP, so that's something you should investigate or consider in building the machine. Personally if my goal was a machine that could play "any" Windows 2000/XP era game, I'd go with a relatively powerful single-core chip. My "picks" for that would either be an Athlon64 (but watch out, as some of that hardware has gotten silly expensive on the used market), or a Celeron D (especially with how cheap LGA 775 hardware has gotten).

- If you're buying brand new hardware, I'd probably either continue the trend and just get a low power Kepler (like GT 630 or 640). They do have Windows XP drivers and they will run much cooler, quieter, etc than the GTX 285. There might be some differences between them in more demanding games like Skyrim, but for WarCraft 3 or NWN1 I honestly doubt it will matter or be noticed.

Finally, if you're just looking for good support/performance for mostly DirectX 7/8 games, and some earlier DirectX 9 games, I'd also suggest looking at GeForce 7 (different/distinct from 700). They're *very* friendly in terms of power/heat, and offer more performance than any DirectX 8 game should ever need. They also have a number of single-slot variants that are still very respectable, like the 7900GS and 7950GT. You may come across "GeForce 7950GX2" if you go out looking for GeForce 7 cards; they're dual-GPU dual-PCB boards. While they do properly own the title of fastest DirectX9-class graphics card, they also have compatibility issues with a number of motherboards, so unless you can confirm whatever board you're choosing is compatible (or buy a board that's listed on the nVidia HCL: http://www.nvidia.com/content/geforce_gx2_sbios/us.asp (don't take this list as absolute btw; there are other boards that may work)) I'd stick to either the 7900GTX (relatively close performance), or one of the "lesser" 7900 series cards. Although having said that, if your goal is *lots* of AA in older games, it might be worth stepping up to a full ATX board and going with a pair of GX2s - they'll let you enable 32x AA when ganged in SLI. Performance is probably no good for a modern game like Skyrim, but they do a very respectable job bludgeoning through 3DMark01 and shouldn't have any issues with a game like WarCraft 3 in that mode.

Are you sure heat and power draw won't be an issue putting that card in a mini-ITX case (assuming you can find one that it fits)? That was a pretty powerful card in it's day. There are newer cards that are just as powerful, smaller, draw less power and throw off less heat that would be more suited to a mini-ITX system. Just doing a quick check I see that a GTX660 (not Ti) totally outclasses a GTX285.

obobskivich wrote:

Just wanted to clarify some things on the graphics hardware:

GTX 285 is not Kepler; it's GT200 (supposedly (e.g. according to Wikipedia) retroactively "Tesla" but I've never actually heard nVidia folks call GT200 (or G9x/G8x) "Tesla" - it was always GT200/G92/G80 in publications back in the day, at least that I saw). Kepler is the very newest nVidia architecture, starting with GeForce 600 series, and continuing with GeForce 700 series (except 750); GK10x chips. "King Kepler" is found on the GTX 780 or Titan parts (more technically the 780 Ti or Titan Black; Quadro K6000 could also probably throw its (*very expensive*) hat into that ring too).

You're right, I meant to write Tesla, but that what happened when you wrote with sore throat and light fever. 🙁

So yes, the GeForce 310M is Tesla architecture, and it works with almost old games I run, even MDK - a Windows 9x games that just happen to run on Windows XP. So I guess a more powerful Tesla generation like GTX 285 should be safe, shouldn't it?

obobskivich wrote:

More information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Kepler_Architecture http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia-kep […]
Show full quote

More information from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Kepler_Architecture
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia-kepler.html

Kepler will have an advantage over GT200 (and the later Fermi) in terms of power efficiency, and therefore heat/noise production, but they are much newer cards (you can still buy most of them brand new). For example the GTX 660 has a TDP of around 140W, and is held by nVidia (and confirmed by external benchmarks) to be roughly equivalent to the GTX 580 (a Fermi card) in terms of performance. The GTX 580 has a 244W TDP per nVidia. The modern top dogs like GTX 770 or 780 will use slightly less power than that, and are notably faster in all regards. They will also run much cooler at idle. Here's an info slide from nVidia that shows relative performance differences:

(image is taken from this page: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/ … 780/performance)

Nice info. 😀

obobskivich wrote:

Regarding what you have in the laptop - the GeForce 300 series is an odd duck; they're mostly OEM products based off of GT2xx (GeForce 200). Wikipedia says the GT310M is a GT218, which is reportedly the same chip under the GeForce 210 and 205. At one point in time GeForce 210s were fairly inexpensive PCIe add-in cards; I think the 205 was an OEM thing. You could probably find either of them on eBay, and honestly if that's enough performance for your needs, why not just stick with that? I remember some of them even run passively.

If you wanted to stay within the GT200 family, but go with something faster, you'd want to constrain your search to the "entry level" parts, 205/210/220/240, and the "enthusiast" parts, 260/275/280/285. The remaining mid-segment GeForce 200 cards are G9x based (not that there's anything wrong with that, but if you want to stick to the GT200 those cards wouldn't be it, per se). In general I would say G9x should be fine for what you want to do as well. In addition to the midling GeForce 200s (like GTS 250), the GeForce 9 series and some GeForce 8 series (8800GS, GT, and the 512MB 8800GTS) cards belong to that family. Also keep in mind that the GTX 285 is a fairly power hungry and hot-running card, even by modern standards.

Well I aim for the "most powerful, yet still compatible with older games" nVidia card to max AA on older games.

obobskivich wrote:

Some other thoughts, unrelated to the graphics:

- If you don't absolutely need the size of an ITX system, I'd go with mATX personally. It'll open you up for more expansion, case, etc options and the build won't likely be much bigger. It may also mean a cheaper motherboard. Also keep in mind that some ITX cases won't fit standard ATX PSUs, and you will likely need to go with an ATX PSU for the GTX 285 (per nVidia, it requires a minimum of a 550W PSU with two 6-pin PCIe power connectors, and has a total card TDP/consumption of 204W). As you've already noted, the dual-slot card is also a potential problem for some ITX cases.

Thanks. How small is a micro ATX compared to mini ITX? Would it be small enough to be put on a "boss desk"? On my desk there are already paper tray, CH Fighterstick and CH pro throttle, and file holders. Besides the mini PC, I also plan to put a wireless S/PDIF transport on the desk (because my amp is behind my head).

obobskivich wrote:

- Some older games will have compatibility issues with multi-core processors, even running under Windows XP, so that's something you should investigate or consider in building the machine. Personally if my goal was a machine that could play "any" Windows 2000/XP era game, I'd go with a relatively powerful single-core chip. My "picks" for that would either be an Athlon64 (but watch out, as some of that hardware has gotten silly expensive on the used market), or a Celeron D (especially with how cheap LGA 775 hardware has gotten).

My Lenovo B460 laptop is dual-core, and many old games work with that. So my goal is to "replicate" the laptop's backward-compatibility in a small PC.

obobskivich wrote:

- If you're buying brand new hardware, I'd probably either continue the trend and just get a low power Kepler (like GT 630 or 640). They do have Windows XP drivers and they will run much cooler, quieter, etc than the GTX 285. There might be some differences between them in more demanding games like Skyrim, but for WarCraft 3 or NWN1 I honestly doubt it will matter or be noticed.

Is it as backward-compatible as Tesla architecture?

obobskivich wrote:

Finally, if you're just looking for good support/performance for mostly DirectX 7/8 games, and some earlier DirectX 9 games, I'd also suggest looking at GeForce 7 (different/distinct from 700). They're *very* friendly in terms of power/heat, and offer more performance than any DirectX 8 game should ever need. They also have a number of single-slot variants that are still very respectable, like the 7900GS and 7950GT. You may come across "GeForce 7950GX2" if you go out looking for GeForce 7 cards; they're dual-GPU dual-PCB boards. While they do properly own the title of fastest DirectX9-class graphics card, they also have compatibility issues with a number of motherboards, so unless you can confirm whatever board you're choosing is compatible (or buy a board that's listed on the nVidia HCL: http://www.nvidia.com/content/geforce_gx2_sbios/us.asp (don't take this list as absolute btw; there are other boards that may work)) I'd stick to either the 7900GTX (relatively close performance), or one of the "lesser" 7900 series cards. Although having said that, if your goal is *lots* of AA in older games, it might be worth stepping up to a full ATX board and going with a pair of GX2s - they'll let you enable 32x AA when ganged in SLI. Performance is probably no good for a modern game like Skyrim, but they do a very respectable job bludgeoning through 3DMark01 and shouldn't have any issues with a game like WarCraft 3 in that mode.

Thanks! Actually I also aim for GX2, but it will be in a full ATX tower in my (yet-to-built) dedicated gaming room. 😁

sliderider wrote:

Are you sure heat and power draw won't be an issue putting that card in a mini-ITX case (assuming you can find one that it fits)? That was a pretty powerful card in it's day. There are newer cards that are just as powerful, smaller, draw less power and throw off less heat that would be more suited to a mini-ITX system. Just doing a quick check I see that a GTX660 (not Ti) totally outclasses a GTX285.

That would be an interesting choice, but is it as backward compatible as Tesla architecture cards?

By the way, there is a 600 watt mini ITX PSU, but I wonder if it supports dual PCIe power connector.

Also, Cooler Master Elite 120 Advanced supports full ATX PSU. I wodner if the Silverstone also supports full ATX PSU as well.

sliderider wrote:

Are you sure heat and power draw won't be an issue putting that card in a mini-ITX case (assuming you can find one that it fits)? That was a pretty powerful card in it's day. There are newer cards that are just as powerful, smaller, draw less power and throw off less heat that would be more suited to a mini-ITX system. Just doing a quick check I see that a GTX660 (not Ti) totally outclasses a GTX285.

"They" actually make cases/boards/power supplies/etc designed around mini-ITX gaming systems. I've seen demonstrator systems with Radeon R9 295X2s and GTX 590s in the past; I think a single 285 should be workable in such a case. But you're right about more conventional ITX cases being massively out-classed by something like the 285. 660 is a very good suggestion - they run quite cool at idle, and stay very quiet overall. 😀

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

So yes, the GeForce 310M is Tesla architecture, and it works with almost old games I run, even MDK - a Windows 9x games that just happen to run on Windows XP. So I guess a more powerful Tesla generation like GTX 285 should be safe, shouldn't it?

In theory yes it should; but I'll add that running Windows XP is a bigger "deal" imo than a specific generation of card. When I still had Windows XP on my newest computer, it ran old games (including 9x games) without issues (except for ones that had problems with it being SMP or had issues with their installers not recognizing the hard-disk capacity right). Switching to Windows 7 x64 broke quite a few of those titles. No hardware change occurred for that upgrade either.

Well I aim for the "most powerful, yet still compatible with older games" nVidia card to max AA on older games.

SLI will give you advantages for AA; specifically SLI-AA mode. If you're really just looking at titles like WarCraft III or things from around that time (so let's say something like Morrowind or Halo would be your most demanding task; feel free to correct that assumption if it's wrong), you would probably better serve your goal with multiple GeForce 7 or 8/9 cards and SLI-AA.

Thanks. How small is a micro ATX compared to mini ITX? Would it be small enough to be put on a "boss desk"? On my desk there are already paper tray, CH Fighterstick and CH pro throttle, and file holders. Besides the mini PC, I also plan to put a wireless S/PDIF transport on the desk (because my amp is behind my head).

"True" ITX, like what I'm assuming sliderider is thinking of, will be relatively smaller. But most of those cases won't take full-size optical drives or power supplies, nor will they fit the GTX 285. More conventional ITX cases designed to handle full-size expansion cards and PSUs won't be much smaller than mATX; the biggest difference will be the height of a MicroATX tower relative to a Mini-ITX tower.

Look at cases like these as examples:
http://www.rosewill.com/products/1813/Product … il_Overview.htm (I actually have this case - it does very well with a Pentium 4 and GeForce FX 5800 Ultra installed; it's compact but it isn't cramped)
http://www.aerocool.us/pgs/pgs-q/qx2000.htm (this style of case, the "cube", was very popular a few years ago - you should still be able to find equivalent designs from Thermaltake, Apevia, Silverstone, and Cooler Master; this one is just an example)

While ITX cases that will accomidate your needs would be more like these:
http://coolermaster-usa.com/product.php?produ … ame=Elite%20130
http://silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=352&area=en (this one, and a lot of towers like it, can actually handle either form factor)

The size difference won't be that dramatic; you won't fit the GTX 285 (or anything of that size) into a more "standard" ITX case like this one:
http://silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=419&area=en

If you want something that small you'd need to ensure that your build has a decent IGP. I know the newest Intel IGPs are reasonable improvements - the one in my laptop can load and run Age of Empires II HD and Morrowind without much trouble, it's an HD 3000 something. I wouldn't expect it to handle anything much newer, like say Fallout 3 or Watch_dogs.

My Lenovo B460 laptop is dual-core, and many old games work with that. So my goal is to "replicate" the laptop's backward-compatibility in a small PC.

That makes sense. Sounds like you've also tested/checked it out for the games you want to run, so it's nothing I'd worry about in your case then. Just felt it was worth noting. 😊

Is it as backward-compatible as Tesla architecture?

I don't see any reason it shouldn't be - they have Windows XP drivers, and are only a generation or so beyond the GT200 cards (GT200->Fermi->Kepler). I have a Kepler in a Windows 7 machine that I can check a few games on (for example I have WarCraft 3, but haven't started it up in a while - I'd be happy to give that a shot, but I'm assuming it will work given that it's listed on GeForce Experience). I don't have install media/copies/etc of some of the games you've mentioned, like NWN1, though.

Again, IME, the bigger "gotcha" is Windows XP vs Windows Vista/7, not the hardware itself. If backwards support is really the concern though, and if we really are talking games from say, 2002 and earlier, I'd save the money and get a 7900GTX and be happy. It'll work AOK under Windows XP (and will also work under Vista/7 if you ever need to upgrade - my 7900GS can run Aero Glass without trouble, so I'd assume the GTX shouldn't have trouble either), and is still massive overkill compared to a GeForce 2/3/4 that most of those older games are probably looking for. It has a considerable advantage in terms of fill-rate, memory bandwidth, etc. It won't do GPU computing or DirectX 10 or PhysX or what-have-you, but it sounds like none of those items are concerns. They're also fairly quiet, and won't use as much power as the GTX 285.

Something like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/nVidia-GeForce-7900-G … =item4d1d7e6604

That rail/sled will make it a full 13.5" card, but it isn't that hard to remove, and return the card to its original 8-9" size. 😀

If you went with Micro ATX you could probably have SLI if you wanted - I wouldn't try 7950GX2s unless you can confirm them working on a specific model that you're looking at, but a pair of 7900GTX or similar (or GTX 285 😈) shouldn't be a problem as long as the board supports SLI.

This board lists WindowsXP drivers on the Asus website:
http://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/GRYPHON_Z87/

And it supports SLI. I don't know much else about it though - just looked up a board that seemed to meet the criteria of being mATX, supporting SLI, and having Windows XP drivers. 😊 There are likely other boards with a similar layout, I just happen to like Asus and it was near the top of my search results. 😀

Thanks! Actually I also aim for GX2, but it will be in a full ATX tower in my (yet-to-built) dedicated gaming room. 😁

Ah! 😀

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

By the way, there is a 600 watt mini ITX PSU, but I wonder if it supports dual PCIe power connector.

Also, Cooler Master Elite 120 Advanced supports full ATX PSU. I wodner if the Silverstone also supports full ATX PSU as well.

That's *really really* expensive for that Silverstone. Like almost double what it should cost. 😵

Here's the mfgr's product page:
http://silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=317&area=en

It has 2 8/6-pin PCIe connectors. 😀

You could alternately go with an ITX case that will accomodate a traditional ATX PSU, and pick whatever model you like. The Silverstone you linked to does not have that capability, but Silverstone does make cases that do (I linked one earlier in this post).

Final odd-ball thought:

If you wanted to kill every bird on your list with a single stone, I'd go with an mATX system, and step up from the GTX 285 to GTX 295 and run QuadSLI in the mATX with a large (at least 700-800W; won't be as much of a problem as it sounds like with modern high efficiency models) PSU. It may get a bit noisy while gaming, but you'd have 32x SLI-AA, massive performance, and the whole thing wouldn't be all that large. Run audio via S/PDIF or USB or what-have-you. It shouldn't cost terribly more than a pair of GTX 285s.

Like this package:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-NVIDIA-GeForce-G … =item338f907618

You'd have to be a little careful on picking a case (you might consider one of the SS "stack flow" cases like the FT03 (http://silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=291&area=en), to ensure you got something with a decent front intake to help keep the cards cool, but otherwise it shouldn't be too hard to make it go. 😎

@obobskivich: nice explanations, buddy, especially about SLI AA. I'm also interested in using 32x SLI AA, but the problem is, Quad SLI doesn't work anymore on XP since GeForce 8xxx. The last Quad SLI that works on XP is GeForce 7950 GX2. Maybe I'll build a dedicated Quad SLI Windows XP system on my yet-to-build dedicated gaming room, with full ATX tower (alongside my Intel 440BX - Voodoo5 5500 AGP and Intel 845 -GeForce 6800). Or maybe I'll try GTX 580 SLI (but not Quad SLI) on Windows XP instead. But for my desk system, I think something like GTX 285 will do. 😀 I plan to play it safe, merely replicating what a GeForce 310M could do, but with more graphic processing power.

It seems most backward incompatibility problems with nVidia is related to its driver, so by using earlier GTX version (2xx vs say, 4xx or 5xx), I could use older driver versions. Since GeForce 310M already works with all my favorite games (well except European Air War), the Tesla generation provides a "safe baseline". Later, I can experiment with newer models, but this time I just want a "quick fix" - just something to replace my Lenovo B460 laptop. 😀

In fact, I have bought a PNY GTX 285 on ebay. 😁

It's funny, according to nVidia graphic comparison, the GTX 285 has better pixel and texel fill rate than GTX 460. Compared to GTX 480, the GTX 285 has lower pixel fill rate, but actually higher texel fill rate! Of course, GTX 4xx series has newer features, but when it goes to AA, fill rate is everything.

As for ITX case, it seems I'll use either Cooler Master Elite 110 or Fractal Design Node 304, with Silverstone's ST45SF-G 450W PSU. Yes, the PSU wattage is lower than the 550W required for a GTX 285, but IIRC it's the minimum requirement power for the whole system, while the video card alone merely requires about 300W or so. Also, the folks at TechReport told me that lower wattage rating is okay as long as it's a good quality unit that supplies enough amps on the 12V rails.

I'm still open to suggestions, though.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

@obobskivich: nice explanations, buddy, especially about SLI AA. I'm also interested in using 32x SLI AA, but the problem is, Qu […]
Show full quote

@obobskivich: nice explanations, buddy, especially about SLI AA. I'm also interested in using 32x SLI AA, but the problem is, Quad SLI doesn't work anymore on XP since GeForce 8xxx. The last Quad SLI that works on XP is GeForce 7950 GX2. Maybe I'll build a dedicated Quad SLI Windows XP system on my yet-to-build dedicated gaming room, with full ATX tower (alongside my Intel 440BX - Voodoo5 5500 AGP and Intel 845 -GeForce 6800). Or maybe I'll try GTX 580 SLI (but not Quad SLI) on Windows XP instead. But for my desk system, I think something like GTX 285 will do. 😀 I plan to play it safe, merely replicating what a GeForce 310M could do, but with more graphic processing power.

It seems most backward incompatibility problems with nVidia is related to its driver, so by using earlier GTX version (2xx vs say, 4xx or 5xx), I could use older driver versions. Since GeForce 310M already works with all my favorite games (well except European Air War), the Tesla generation provides a "safe baseline". Later, I can experiment with newer models, but this time I just want a "quick fix" - just something to replace my Lenovo B460 laptop. 😀

In fact, I have bought a PNY GTX 285 on ebay. 😁

It's funny, according to nVidia graphic comparison, the GTX 285 has better pixel and texel fill rate than GTX 460. Compared to GTX 480, the GTX 285 has lower pixel fill rate, but actually higher texel fill rate! Of course, GTX 4xx series has newer features, but when it goes to AA, fill rate is everything.

As for ITX case, it seems I'll use either Cooler Master Elite 110 or Fractal Design Node 304, with Silverstone's ST45SF-G 450W PSU. Yes, the PSU wattage is lower than the 550W required for a GTX 285, but IIRC it's the minimum requirement power for the whole system, while the video card alone merely requires about 300W or so. Also, the folks at TechReport told me that lower wattage rating is okay as long as it's a good quality unit that supplies enough amps on the 12V rails.

I'm still open to suggestions, though.

If you use old enough forceware drivers that are compatible with Rivatuner, you'll probably be able to force OG Supersampling with it

>

Regarding the other subject, I have a Gigabyte Z87X-OC along with a 4770k and I was able to use XP with everything working fine by using a few handpicked driver packages I can't remember off the top of my head right now...

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

@obobskivich: nice explanations, buddy, especially about SLI AA. I'm also interested in using 32x SLI AA, but the problem is, Quad SLI doesn't work anymore on XP since GeForce 8xxx. The last Quad SLI that works on XP is GeForce 7950 GX2. Maybe I'll build a dedicated Quad SLI Windows XP system on my yet-to-build dedicated gaming room, with full ATX tower (alongside my Intel 440BX - Voodoo5 5500 AGP and Intel 845 -GeForce 6800). Or maybe I'll try GTX 580 SLI (but not Quad SLI) on Windows XP instead. But for my desk system, I think something like GTX 285 will do. 😀 I plan to play it safe, merely replicating what a GeForce 310M could do, but with more graphic processing power.

They really killed QuadSLI in XP? Good grief, honestly hadn't heard that. 😵 I have 7950GX2 QuadSLI running XP Pro and it would like me to report that it is alive and well. 🤣

It seems most backward incompatibility problems with nVidia is related to its driver, so by using earlier GTX version (2xx vs say, 4xx or 5xx), I could use older driver versions. Since GeForce 310M already works with all my favorite games (well except European Air War), the Tesla generation provides a "safe baseline". Later, I can experiment with newer models, but this time I just want a "quick fix" - just something to replace my Lenovo B460 laptop. 😀

In fact, I have bought a PNY GTX 285 on ebay. 😁

It's funny, according to nVidia graphic comparison, the GTX 285 has better pixel and texel fill rate than GTX 460. Compared to GTX 480, the GTX 285 has lower pixel fill rate, but actually higher texel fill rate! Of course, GTX 4xx series has newer features, but when it goes to AA, fill rate is everything.

Looks like a good choice of a card - PNY makes nice cards in my experience, and it should do a killer job for your games. It'll also support newer features like PhysX (no DX10 under XP, but that's not a dream killer imho). My whole reasoning for suggesting SLI was for SLI-AA (and to present other options), not any sort of "performance requirements" - the GTX 285 will certainly be overkill by itself! I believe nVidia still caps out at 8x or 12x AA for single cards, while SLI will allow up to 32x (for GeForce; Quadro QuadSLI can do 128x if memory serves, but you can't just buy multiple Quadro cards and drop them into a normal system and enable SLI (you have to have a "Quadro SLI Certified" platform)).

Comparing to the Fermi (or newer) and DX9/10 cards is a bit touchy; fill-rate hasn't increased dramatically in the last 5-6 years, but shader performance has improved substantially, and memory bandwidth is still going up. The 400 series should perform better than the 200 series in games that rely heavily on shaders or benefit from the memory bandwidth, but for older games the differences probably won't be as dramatic (for example I wouldn't expect Morrowind to run all that much faster than the 480 than on the 285).

Here's HWCompare with benchmark #s for 285 vs 460:
http://www.hwcompare.com/8270/geforce-gtx-285 … ce-gtx-460-1gb/

Notice in the older/lighter games, like Mass Effect 2, they're pretty close. But in Supreme Commander 2 the 460 really pulls ahead. The 480 isn't a fair comparison:
http://www.hwcompare.com/8788/geforce-gtx-285 … eforce-gtx-480/

Note two things: 1) a lot of these tests are running AA and 2) a lot of these results are comparing very high FPS values on both cards, which in practice won't be discernible, especially with vsync enabled.

You should have no problems running basically everything (especially older (DX7-9) titles) with 4x-8x AA at high resolutions with the 285. 😀 Even newer games should run fine up until you run out of VRAM, system memory, or get into games that require DX11 or 64-bit OS (CoD: Ghosts and Watch_dogs are two examples).

As for ITX case, it seems I'll use either Cooler Master Elite 110 or Fractal Design Node 304, with Silverstone's ST45SF-G 450W PSU. Yes, the PSU wattage is lower than the 550W required for a GTX 285, but IIRC it's the minimum requirement power for the whole system, while the video card alone merely requires about 300W or so. Also, the folks at TechReport told me that lower wattage rating is okay as long as it's a good quality unit that supplies enough amps on the 12V rails.

I'm still open to suggestions, though.

The CM 110 will not work; it will not take the 285's length (it's too shallow - this is per CM's specs). I don't like the non-standard PSU mounting on the Fractal either (it also notes that it will have issues with cards longer than 170mm, which makes it a problem for the 285). The CM Elite 120 will work, and supports standard ATX PSUs (there's no reason to go with an SFF PSU if you aren't going with an SFF case, and since you can't fit the 285 into an SFF case, unless you already have that PSU just go with a normal ATX model). This case: http://www.coolermaster.com/case/mini-itx-eli … e-120-advanced/ (and given that size requirement, an mATX cube isn't much of a stretch).

The 450W PSU should be fine in principle - nVidia is notorious for over-stating overall power requirements (and that 550W is indeed for the whole system). The GTX 285 is 204W max TDP per nVidia (300W is more like a 4870X2 or heavily overclocked GTX 480). If it were 300W you wouldn't want to use a 450W PSU - it wouldn't have enough headroom left for the CPU, cooling, and so forth and still keep it in the mid-band for efficiency (a PSU should ideally be loaded between 40 and 60% of its rated maximum output for maximum efficiency, as their efficiency generally exists along a curve, not as a flat line). That's partially where nVidia's 550W comes from.

Something like the 650W version of this, paired with the CM 120, would be where I'd go with this build:
http://www.seasonicusa.com/G-series-450-550-650.htm

There's other good makers that will do a quality 500-700W unit, like Antec or PC Power and Cooling. In general I'm not a fan of Cooler Master power supplies (and yes I realize that you'll always find someone who's friend or brother has one and it's worked fine for years and years, but they've always been kind of a "half way to quality" brand).

obobskivich wrote:

They really killed QuadSLI in XP? Good grief, honestly hadn't heard that. 😵 I have 7950GX2 QuadSLI running XP Pro and it would like me to report that it is alive and well. 🤣

Quad SLI for XP ends with 7xxx series. 🙁 😵

obobskivich wrote:

Looks like a good choice of a card - PNY makes nice cards in my experience, and it should do a killer job for your games. It'll also support newer features like PhysX (no DX10 under XP, but that's not a dream killer imho).

Well the things I like about the PNY card is that it's stock-clocked, not overclocked. I'm gonna use it for old games anyway, so I won't need any overclock which, by the way, potentially shortens the card's life.

Oh, and it's new. 😀

obobskivich wrote:

My whole reasoning for suggesting SLI was for SLI-AA (and to present other options), not any sort of "performance requirements" -

Same here. 😀

obobskivich wrote:

the GTX 285 will certainly be overkill by itself! I believe nVidia still caps out at 8x or 12x AA for single cards, while SLI will allow up to 32x (for GeForce; Quadro QuadSLI can do 128x if memory serves, but you can't just buy multiple Quadro cards and drop them into a normal system and enable SLI (you have to have a "Quadro SLI Certified" platform)).

Even 8x AA is fine, as long as it's SSAA.

obobskivich wrote:

Comparing to the Fermi (or newer) and DX9/10 cards is a bit touchy; fill-rate hasn't increased dramatically in the last 5-6 year […]
Show full quote

Comparing to the Fermi (or newer) and DX9/10 cards is a bit touchy; fill-rate hasn't increased dramatically in the last 5-6 years, but shader performance has improved substantially, and memory bandwidth is still going up. The 400 series should perform better than the 200 series in games that rely heavily on shaders or benefit from the memory bandwidth, but for older games the differences probably won't be as dramatic (for example I wouldn't expect Morrowind to run all that much faster than the 480 than on the 285).

Here's HWCompare with benchmark #s for 285 vs 460:
http://www.hwcompare.com/8270/geforce-gtx-285 … ce-gtx-460-1gb/

Notice in the older/lighter games, like Mass Effect 2, they're pretty close. But in Supreme Commander 2 the 460 really pulls ahead. The 480 isn't a fair comparison:
http://www.hwcompare.com/8788/geforce-gtx-285 … eforce-gtx-480/

Note two things: 1) a lot of these tests are running AA and 2) a lot of these results are comparing very high FPS values on both cards, which in practice won't be discernible, especially with vsync enabled.

Indeed. I guess I have hit the "sweet spot" with the GTX 285. No need for shader performance, just insane amount of fillrate! 😀 (for old games, that is)

obobskivich wrote:

You should have no problems running basically everything (especially older (DX7-9) titles) with 4x-8x AA at high resolutions with the 285. 😀 Even newer games should run fine up until you run out of VRAM, system memory, or get into games that require DX11 or 64-bit OS (CoD: Ghosts and Watch_dogs are two examples).

Indeed. Couldn't wait to run Crimson Skies of F-22 Lightning 3 with that card! 😀

obobskivich wrote:

The CM 110 will not work; it will not take the 285's length (it's too shallow - this is per CM's specs). I don't like the non-standard PSU mounting on the Fractal either (it also notes that it will have issues with cards longer than 170mm, which makes it a problem for the 285). The CM Elite 120 will work, and supports standard ATX PSUs (there's no reason to go with an SFF PSU if you aren't going with an SFF case, and since you can't fit the 285 into an SFF case, unless you already have that PSU just go with a normal ATX model). This case: http://www.coolermaster.com/case/mini-itx-eli … e-120-advanced/ (and given that size requirement, an mATX cube isn't much of a stretch).

I see, many thanks! Fortunately I haven't bought the wrong case from ebay.

By the way, case and video card I'll definitely buy from ebay, while mobo I can buy locally here. You see, premium products are quite hard to find in Indonesia. For example, you were lucky if you could find GeForce 7900 here, at most you'll find 7600 instead.

obobskivich wrote:

The 450W PSU should be fine in principle - nVidia is notorious for over-stating overall power requirements (and that 550W is ind […]
Show full quote

The 450W PSU should be fine in principle - nVidia is notorious for over-stating overall power requirements (and that 550W is indeed for the whole system). The GTX 285 is 204W max TDP per nVidia (300W is more like a 4870X2 or heavily overclocked GTX 480). If it were 300W you wouldn't want to use a 450W PSU - it wouldn't have enough headroom left for the CPU, cooling, and so forth and still keep it in the mid-band for efficiency (a PSU should ideally be loaded between 40 and 60% of its rated maximum output for maximum efficiency, as their efficiency generally exists along a curve, not as a flat line). That's partially where nVidia's 550W comes from.

Something like the 650W version of this, paired with the CM 120, would be where I'd go with this build:
http://www.seasonicusa.com/G-series-450-550-650.htm

There's other good makers that will do a quality 500-700W unit, like Antec or PC Power and Cooling. In general I'm not a fan of Cooler Master power supplies (and yes I realize that you'll always find someone who's friend or brother has one and it's worked fine for years and years, but they've always been kind of a "half way to quality" brand).

I see, thanks again buddy! 😀

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Quad SLI for XP ends with 7xxx series. 🙁 😵

BOOOO! 😒

Well the things I like about the PNY card is that it's stock-clocked, not overclocked. I'm gonna use it for old games anyway, so I won't need any overclock which, by the way, potentially shortens the card's life.

Oh, and it's new. 😀

Those are all good things. Didn't even catch that it was new - just saw that it had the box. 😊

Sounds like this will be one killer of a machine for the games it's going to run. 😎

obobskivich wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Quad SLI for XP ends with 7xxx series. 🙁 😵

BOOOO! 😒

The bigger boo would be nVidia Fucktimus... I mean, Optimus. If you use XP, then you have no choice but to use Intel graphics. So much for nVidia laptop..... 😒

That's why laptop like Lenovo B460 is so rare and precious.

obobskivich wrote:

Well the things I like about the PNY card is that it's stock-clocked, not overclocked. I'm gonna use it for old games anyway, so I won't need any overclock which, by the way, potentially shortens the card's life.

Oh, and it's new. 😀

Those are all good things. Didn't even catch that it was new - just saw that it had the box. 😊

Sounds like this will be one killer of a machine for the games it's going to run. 😎

Amen. 😀

Hmmm.... I'm still not sure about processor though. On my B460 laptop (Core i5), Crimson Skies runs too fast where there aren't many textures on the scene (example: night scenario, or foggy sky), so apparently the bottleneck is the GeForce 310M GPU, while the CPU itself is probably too fast for certain old games.

Is modern day Celerons sufficient for old Windows XP games like Crimson Skies and Neverwinter Nights? How about i3?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Hmmm.... I'm still not sure about processor though. On my B460 laptop (Core i5), Crimson Skies runs too fast where there aren't many textures on the scene (example: night scenario, or foggy sky), so apparently the bottleneck is the GeForce 310M GPU, while the CPU itself is probably too fast for certain old games.

Is modern day Celerons sufficient for old Windows XP games like Crimson Skies and Neverwinter Nights? How about i3?

Celeron D would be more than sufficient for those games. Modern CPUs will be overkill many times over. Multi-core also presents issues, and may be the cause of some of the "too fast" issues - it's a timing issue that Microsoft has identified in some older games. AMD released a patch to address it for Athlon64 X2, but I'm not aware of any other patches for other CPUs (like Core 2 Duo or what-have-you).

To help frame this discussion a little: Neverwinter Nights' base system requirements are a 450MHz Pentium II, 128MB of RAM, and a 16MB "TNT-class" graphics card. The suggested requirements bump up to an 800MHz Pentium III, 256MB of RAM, and a GeForce 2 (see here: http://gamesystemrequirements.com/games.php?id=21).

GeForce GTX 285 has enough RAM onboard to carry the entire game, and almost enough to INSTALL the entire game. 🤣 You don't need a Core i5 or Core i7 to run these titles. Pentium 4, Celeron D, Athlon 64, etc will already be overkill. Crimson Skies has even lower system requirements than NWN, just for reference (http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=20936&tab=sysreqs).