I don't know if there is a workaround ( /PAE ?) but from what I recall if your using XP 32bit then vram will subtract from your total available memory. Example if you choose the 2gb R7 240, then you will have less than 2gb available for system memory.

You could always run XP 64bit but from what I've heard there are so many compatibility issues that you might as well run something more modern.

If I was going to design a system around XP 32bit OS, I would probably limit my GPU to 1gb. Individual processes still wont use more than 2gb, but I'd rather have another 1gb avaliable for caching / background / OS tasks.

There are several ways of going about it but for modernish hardware you may as well be running 7 at this point as it works with the vast majority of XP games without bricking unlike Win10 (gag) but for pure fun though expensive you could look to doing a mid to late 2000s build that would be more native to XP. If all else there are some laptops out there that are very favorable to retro XP gaming that are still cheap however their performance ins't that great compared to modern hardware but they sure damn look nice should you find the right ones.

BinaryDemon wrote:

I don't know if there is a workaround ( /PAE ?) but from what I recall if your using XP 32bit then vram will subtract from your total available memory. Example if you choose the 2gb R7 240, then you will have less than 2gb available for system memory.

You could always run XP 64bit but from what I've heard there are so many compatibility issues that you might as well run something more modern.

If I was going to design a system around XP 32bit OS, I would probably limit my GPU to 1gb. Individual processes still wont use more than 2gb, but I'd rather have another 1gb avaliable for caching / background / OS tasks.

This was already discussed in some topic a little while ago, and was proven that it is incorrect.

Here it is what i'm talking about Viability of dual booting XP/7 with a dedicated video card for each OS?

Ahh good info.

I just looked into it, apparently there is another big part of this is the motherboard being able to map into memory addresses above 4gb. So while your right:it's likely the OP will only lose 256/512mb of system ram because his system is fairly modern, that might not be true on legacy hardware.

I think that's why I vaguely recall seeing available memory as low as 2.75gb when putting modern videocards in older systems.

BinaryDemon wrote:

Ahh good info.

I just looked into it, apparently there is another big part of this is the motherboard being able to map into memory addresses above 4gb. So while your right:it's likely the OP will only lose 256/512mb of system ram because his system is fairly modern, that might not be true on legacy hardware.

I think that's why I vaguely recall seeing available memory as low as 2.75gb when putting modern videocards in older systems.

3.75gb, because you lose 256mb for each pci express gpu.

.legaCy wrote:

BinaryDemon wrote:

Ahh good info.

I just looked into it, apparently there is another big part of this is the motherboard being able to map into memory addresses above 4gb. So while your right:it's likely the OP will only lose 256/512mb of system ram because his system is fairly modern, that might not be true on legacy hardware.

I think that's why I vaguely recall seeing available memory as low as 2.75gb when putting modern videocards in older systems.

3.75gb, because you lose 256mb for each pci express gpu.

2.75/3.75 still both plenty for a WinXP
I would think either card can play anything that doesn't work on later windows versions

nforce4max wrote:

There are several ways of going about it but for modernish hardware you may as well be running 7 at this point as it works with the vast majority of XP games without bricking unlike Win10 (gag) but for pure fun though expensive you could look to doing a mid to late 2000s build that would be more native to XP. If all else there are some laptops out there that are very favorable to retro XP gaming that are still cheap however their performance ins't that great compared to modern hardware but they sure damn look nice should you find the right ones.

I wouldn't use Win 7 for XP aera games. You would miss out on EAX and other audio features from the time as Win 7 has new audio code. So those games would only be stereo without the environmental effects as long as you don't use alchemy or something. But that is not compatible with a lot of games or produces wrong effects in some cases.

I was about to ask a similar question. I have an HP DC7800 SFF that I'm thinking about re-purposing into a late XP gaming machine, the video card that I'm currently using is a 1GB ASUS AMD Radeon HD 6450, I'll be sure to do some benchmarks and test as many games as I can on it to see if it's any good. I was thinking about getting an nVidia Geforce GT 730 video card just in case the Radeon doesn't cut it as someone else claimed the Radeon HD 6xxx series was too new for XP gaming in another thread from a while back.

They made LP GeForce 8600 cards. If you found one with DDR3 it would make a good XP card. Although honestly I would go for something newer, more energy efficient and more powerful like a LP 750ti or HD7750. The games that are going to have issues with something new would probably be better played on an agp system.

ODwilly wrote:

They made LP GeForce 8600 cards. If you found one with DDR3 it would make a good XP card. Although honestly I would go for something newer, more energy efficient and more powerful like a LP 750ti or HD7750. The games that are going to have issues with something new would probably be better played on an agp system.

Agreed, for directx 9 it is a good option, at leats where i live it is cheap and easy to find.

and r7 240 is slightly overkill but if you can find one for cheap go for it

i actually own 2 hd 7570s (one is broken) and for xp era gaming its pretty good