That system has just been gathering dust in storage ever since I upgraded to I7 system, so I was thinking I could at least use it for something when playing games like crysis that work better in winXP compared to later OS.

Radical Vision wrote:

scale the thing up with 1080P and other useless crap, that are not ment to be used... ..... AA and AF are useless, only more loa […]
Show full quote

scale the thing up with 1080P and other useless crap, that are not ment to be used...
.....
AA and AF are useless, only more load on the system
.....
Also above 60 FPS is whatever is about the same

Well, clearly you have no idea how things work. So it is better to end this pointless discussion.... just enjoy your blurry slideshow-like gaming on Athlon XP. 😵

That system has just been gathering dust in storage ever since I upgraded to I7 system, so I was thinking I could at least use it for something when playing games like crysis that work better in winXP compared to later OS.

Core 2 system is good for XP gaming. And there are games that either can't run on modern system at all or run worse (but still are rather demanding). But Crysis is not one of them, from my experience it works very well on modern system in 64-bit DX10 mode, with proper AA, TRAA and AF.

havli wrote:

Core 2 system is good for XP gaming. And there are games that either can't run on modern system at all or run worse (but still are rather demanding). But Crysis is not one of them, from my experience it works very well on modern system in 64-bit DX10 mode, with proper AA, TRAA and AF.

In Phil's youtube video he said that crysis has glitches that can't be fixed except by playing it on winXP.

havli wrote:

Radical Vision wrote:

scale the thing up with 1080P and other useless crap, that are not ment to be used... ..... AA and AF are useless, only more loa […]
Show full quote

scale the thing up with 1080P and other useless crap, that are not ment to be used...
.....
AA and AF are useless, only more load on the system
.....
Also above 60 FPS is whatever is about the same

Well, clearly you have no idea how things work. So it is better to end this pointless discussion.... just enjoy your blurry slideshow-like gaming on Athlon XP. 😵

Only thing here clear is you speaking nonsense, and you are the one needing 100 time faster hardware to run older games not me, my game is running fast as lightning on old hardware, while in the same time, you can`t run the old games on old hardware, simply bcuz your system is bad... You are the No-skill guy when it comes to old machines not me.. I will repeat is very, very, very, very easy to run old games on hardware that is 10+ years more new, then on old hardware, so simply your idea of DDR3 based machine for XP old games sucks bad...

Yeah better to end this, as you enjoy your no skill in playing and building proper old hardware for old games, what a joke...

Baoran wrote:

In Phil's youtube video he said that crysis has glitches that can't be fixed except by playing it on winXP.

What kind of glitches? I've spent a lot of time playing Crysis and didn't notice any obvious glitches.
And on top of that - in 64-bit mode there are better textures (higher resolution), mainly visible on distant mountains. Although it might be possible to run 64-bit Crysis in 64-bit Windows XP, I guess it really isn't the OS for gaming.

havli wrote:

Baoran wrote:

In Phil's youtube video he said that crysis has glitches that can't be fixed except by playing it on winXP.

What kind of glitches? I've spent a lot of time playing Crysis and didn't notice any obvious glitches.
And on top of that - in 64-bit mode there are better textures (higher resolution), mainly visible on distant mountains. Although it might be possible to run 64-bit Crysis in 64-bit Windows XP, I guess it really isn't the OS for gaming.

If I remember correctly one of the glitches was that land mass reflections in the water are missing if you don't play on windows xp.

Well, let's be honest, retro gaming in FullHD is probably little too much (since there is lot of games, which can't really cope with widescreen resolutions), but retro gaming in 1600x1200 is totally fine in my eyes. And even for that resolution and Windows XP gaming, you need a LOT of CPU and GPU power. And this obviously means, that whole "period correct" idea has to be thrown out of window, and I'm totally fine with that. We can clearly see, that Radical Vision is not fine with that, but luckily his view on the world isn't universal for everyone. Because let's be honest here, do we really want to put period correctness above gaming experience, if only thing I want to achieve with build is play some games? Really? Like playing games in 20fps and saying to myself, that this is how it should be, because this is what it was gaming back then? Well if yes, then fine, enjoy yourself. But I would rather piss off Radical Vision with my total crap (and pointlessly overkill) PC, which can play desired games in 1600x1200 with playable fps, which of course it 60fps+...

I can just install the old, retro, or DOS games on my main machine, but i see zero point in that, then why the hell i have the old hardware for..
The magic is to run on old as hell systems newer things, and see how they perform... Still remember a friend old hardware enthusiast how did test new game on 386 based system, and the game was so new for that system, it did take minutes for the throops to get to the resources what a fun...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il-lgsFLSGk

Then why the hell people that are using modern hardware like socket AM3+, LGA 1155, DDR3 RAM and Video cards like HD7970 and GTX 780 are collecting old hardware, when they can run all the games they want on their main rigs, what a joke...
Whatever everyone have his own opinion, the thing is just some of us are more wrong then the rest of us...

The 'point' of a build is up to the person building it. Sometimes the purposes are highly specific. Sometimes they're just silly things we do for fun. Sometimes they're more practical and general.

Some people want to run a newer OS and want it to run as many older games/apps as possible.
Some people want to run an older OS and want it to run as many newer games/apps as possible.

People in the latter group will be using newer hardware with a given OS than those in the former group. Neither is wrong.

I like WinXP so where that OS is concerned, I'm in the latter group. I use XP with a Phenom2 because it allows me to run the things I want to run.

I'm not trying to start an OS debate here. My point is that there's a big difference between what XP is capable of versus what some consider to be it's "end of life". That's why there's a huge range of ideas of what hardware is "appropriate" for it. This versatility is also one of the reasons it's awesome.

My CPU is triple core but I haven't noticed my games appreciably utilizing more than 2 of them. However, I don't play many modern games so that's not saying much. I don't doubt that there are some games that will run under XP that could benefit from more than a dual.

I don't really consider Windows XP and playing Crysis on it retro. Windows XP is problematic as retro because it was supported by hardware manufacturers for such a long time after it was launched. Probably more than twice as long as win95/98 was supported. Many people skipped vista (me included) and used XP until around 2010 before switching to windows 7, so for many people it might be considered to be period correct hardware from 2001 to 2010 for windows XP. Hardware manufacturers kept on releasing windows xp drivers long after that.

For me using that system isn't about retro, it is more about the OS and having a pc that can run older titles meant for it that might have glitches on windows 7.
I have a period correct dos pc and period correct win98 pc and my main pc has windows 7, so I could at least use that socket 939 system for something if I use with titles that work better with winxp than windows 7.

Baoran: ok, that's fine. If you don't consider XP retro enough, that's your, completely valid opinion. But OP was asking about XP gaming CPU, so information, that you don't consider XP as a retro system will not help much. Also, it's nice, that you own few period correct machines, nobody is taking that from you. I would really like to build period correct specked machine as well, but there are several reasons, why I probably will not, at least not in foreseeable future. Even tho, I'm in PC world since MS-DOS 6.2 and Windows 3.1, I started to collecting some of this older hardware just recently, and prices for period correct DOS/Win95/98 HW skyrocketed in last few years. Also I'm living in a flat with limited space, and most importantly, I'm a fresh father, so money have to be invested in my daughter, not in old PC stuff. Therefore, when I build my recent "retro" PC (and yes, I'm using those quotation marks deliberately), I used kind of new HW, which still supports Win 98. No, it's not primary system on that machine, this goes to XP, but I wanted to be able run Win 98 natively, so I build machine around compatible HW, even tho it's overkill as hell. And that's fine by me, I'm building that machine for my purposes, not to please someone else. And it would be nice to have it here friendly environment, where people would respect and help each other, with open mind like shamino. And not toxic environment like with Radical Vision, who just thinks, that he's better then everyone, that retro is only considered retro, if he's thinks it, and everything else is crap, and that running StarCraft with 0,01 fps on 386 is some kind of huge achievement...

Just my $0.02 - I built a Core 2 system with a LGA 771 Xeon CPU in it (bits I had lying around) and quickly replaced it with a Sandy Bridge i5 2500k system. I'm sure the C2Q (well, Xeon equivalent) would have run all my XP stuff just fine, but I wanted to get more out of the system and so dual booted with WinXP & Win10 using a modern graphics card (Radeon 7970). All my XP stuff runs great on it, and so does most modern Win10 games as well. The best of both worlds

Ok everyone have their own opinions, ideas and style. Still why the f**k then many of you build old machines, if they are not for old games, zero sense........
Then just dump, or sell all the old hardware, as the new GDDR5 GPUs, the 800W PSUs, the DDR4 memory will run all games on 200FPS and 4K.........

Radical Vision wrote:

Ok everyone have their own opinions, ideas and style. Still why the f**k then many of you build old machines, if they are not for old games, zero sense........
Then just dump, or sell all the old hardware, as the new GDDR5 GPUs, the 800W PSUs, the DDR4 memory will run all games on 200FPS and 4K.........

Calm down. 😐

EDIT: Also, look at the VOGONS logo and read the text above it.

Rofl they need to change the text to "heaven of old hardware and enthusiasts" or something like that...
As the forum is more more like place for old machines and enthusiasts, then running old games on 16 core processors and 64GB or ram..

Please everyone stay calm and forget the retro discussion, stay on topic and keep it civil (@ RV)

My few cents :

1) Get Quad Core for XP (reason : GTA IV)
2) @OP : DO NOT BUY QX series LGA 775 CPU if you have a MB with FSB OC and capable of 400MHz (1600MHz effective) or more FSB speeds. It's simply dumb, and not necessary (because all locked Quads [both Core and Xeon variety], can be OC'ed on that platform).
3) There is no definition of "Retro PC", so everyone can have an opinion about it.
4)

havli wrote:

Also for the ultimate XP gaming the choice is simple - fast Ivy Bridge CPU + Kepler based GPU. 😀

Radical Vision wrote:

Also from your twisted sick point of view, people better to trash dump all the 3Dfx cards and old hardware that are under Ivy Bridge and GEforce 7xx bcuz they will not be able to run DOS games, 98 games, and XP games any good......... 😵 😵 😵 😵 😕

Windows XP + Ivy Bridge + Kepler ?
So basicly you guys are talking about my current main rig 😁

Valid : LINK
^I'm using Xonar Essence ST Dlx for software EAX compatibility with sound tests.

And yes, I do dual boot with Win 10 x64.
My VRMark "Cyan" Score from Win10 : LINK
I'm using NVMe because 40 PCI-e lanes were going to waste without at least this or SLI

Why I do all this ?
Because it's fun 😉

However, do not try to force a way for someone to build a rig he wants.
If OP wants to play DOS games on LGA 1366 Hex Core Core i7 - let him play them on it.
I don't see anything wrong with that, and same goes for playing DX9/10 games on OP PCs.
You may want a PC to do one thing (ie. you like to challange it to do those things), but others may have different needs/ideas (like building and enjoying highest performance they can buy).

This thread is really making me want to install XP on a 64GB SSD I have laying around and use it on my main system. This has to be fairly close to the fastest system that would actually have Windows XP drivers for everything:

MSI P67A-G43
i5 2500K @ 4.2Ghz
16GB DDR3-1866 1.5v
GTX 970 (cooled with an Arctic Accellero III with a silent 120mm fan)
BenQ XL2720Z (gives CRT-like motion clarity at any resolution or refresh rate using BenQ Blur Reduction)
Asus Xonar DG (I was using a DX but I only use digital out and I needed to occupy a PCI slot rather than PCI-E to make room for the GPU cooler)

About the only thing the system would be missing would be an X-Fi for better DirectSound3D and EAX compatibility, but the Xonar would probably do okay.

Man, I want to do this now... I think this thing would probably run 90% of the games that work in XP without problems (including older DOS and 9x titles that work okay in XP). Then I'd really only "need" special systems for the games that don't run properly on such a fast XP rig. Would be a really neat little side project. 😀

I could go really crazy and get rid of the Xonar, use the onboard sound for XP and 10, then install my Voodoo 5 5500 PCI and Vortex 2 SQ2500 for good DOS and Windows sound support, and I could run Windows 98SE on it too (booting to DOS of course). 🤣 🤣 🤣

When I eventually build a new system (I've been running this 2500K for SEVEN years) I will probably turn it into a monstrously overpowered multi-boot system like this. 😊

agent_x007 wrote:

My few cents :

1) Get Quad Core for XP (reason : GTA IV)
2) @OP : DO NOT BUY QX series LGA 775 CPU if you have a MB with FSB OC and capable of 400MHz (1600MHz effective) or more FSB speeds. It's simply dumb, and not necessary (because all locked Quads [both Core and Xeon variety], can be OC'ed on that platform).

Is there problems with gta IV using windows 7 compared to XP?
The motherboard I have in the system is Asus Stiker II extreme. Only thing I am bit unsure of is how it would handle 150W TDP of Xeon X5482.

Baoran wrote:

Is there any advantage in having quad core vs dual core when it comes to windows xp gaming?
Basically I am asking if there are any windows xp games that take advantage of 4 cores like perhaps crysis or far cry?
I am wondering if it would be worth it to get one of those modded quad core LGA771 xeons and replace my core 2 duo cpu.

"XP gaming", when defined as "games that require XP" spans from 2003ish to 2013 or so, when games started to require more then 3GB of memory and switched to 64bit. IF we stretch that to "games that run on XP" then it is 1995 to 2015. That is a lot of time to cover.

Yes, know 64 bit XP exists. I also know that its driver support is kind of wonky.

If there is a benefit? Well - Core 2 quads are cheap these days so is memory. Stuff is compatible, boards are there and if necessary, you can get very well performing GPUs - both from compatibility and speed POV. Sure, some late PCI-e GPUS are going to struggle with directX 6 games, but 6xxx series geforces exist.

For DOS gaming those systems would probably work, except maybe with an exception for games that require a mouse, as I heard USB mouse support is non-existant in dos.

That being said - games that "require" a quad core are, as far as I can tell, 64bit only, so for explicit "XP gaming" I'd go for a single or dual core CPU with as much clock as you are comfortable with. I doubt you are going to play speed sensitive games on this rig.