VOGONS


Reply 20 of 85, by mothergoose729

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
keenmaster486 wrote:
Well, but at that point you might as well just run Windows 7. But then again, the kind of machine we're talking about is better […]
Show full quote
cyclone3d wrote:

XP does come in an x64 flavor as well. The x64 drivers are mature as well. There are also some games that have x64 executables which run a bit faster than their 32-bit counterparts,

Well, but at that point you might as well just run Windows 7. But then again, the kind of machine we're talking about is better for 7 anyway. Part of the whole reason for running XP to begin with is because of how well it works with 2001-2007-ish-era 32-bit hardware, pre-AMD64.

Perhaps a better question would be: what is the fastest XP setup that is still a 32-bit CPU? In which case the answer would probably be a dual-core Pentium 4 or Xeon, overclocked, with some kind of high-end Nvidia GPU.

As soon as you go 64-bit, you had better have a 64-bit OS to take full advantage of the system, and immediately your best option (depending on your RAM requirements) is either Windows 7 or some Linux distro.

For maximum compatibility XP 32 bit does make more sense. From a compatibility standpoint, 64bit capable CPUs perform identically to 32 bit only CPUs, just faster. There is definitely software in the later XP life time that benefits from core2duo or better IPC and clock speeds. The only CPU compatibility related issues I am aware of have to do with multiple cores or hypter threading. Some very early XP games can run too fast or unstable if they have access to a second thread. The easiest solution is to just force thread assignment through the task manager, or to use a fast single core CPU or disable cores and hyper threading in the bios.

Even for late XP games, having true hardware accelerated EAX, which is only supported on XP, makes it worth running some later era XP games that are also capable of running on windows 7 or later operating systems. Most of them do sound the same through alchemy, but not all of them are supported through software.

Reply 21 of 85, by Azarien

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

64-bit XP may sound interesting, but it's like the worst of both worlds: you loose most of XP's advantage in compatibility with legacy stuff, but at the same time it's still just XP (sort of...) so you can't run modern software anyways (and expect problems with hardware drivers too).

Reply 22 of 85, by Ozzuneoj

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
keenmaster486 wrote:
Well, but at that point you might as well just run Windows 7. But then again, the kind of machine we're talking about is better […]
Show full quote
cyclone3d wrote:

XP does come in an x64 flavor as well. The x64 drivers are mature as well. There are also some games that have x64 executables which run a bit faster than their 32-bit counterparts,

Well, but at that point you might as well just run Windows 7. But then again, the kind of machine we're talking about is better for 7 anyway. Part of the whole reason for running XP to begin with is because of how well it works with 2001-2007-ish-era 32-bit hardware, pre-AMD64.

Perhaps a better question would be: what is the fastest XP setup that is still a 32-bit CPU? In which case the answer would probably be a dual-core Pentium 4 or Xeon, overclocked, with some kind of high-end Nvidia GPU.

As soon as you go 64-bit, you had better have a 64-bit OS to take full advantage of the system, and immediately your best option (depending on your RAM requirements) is either Windows 7 or some Linux distro.

I disagree that XP is best run on 32bit CPUs. Athlon 64 CPUs were available for just shy of three years before Vista was released, and only a tiny percentage of people used them on XP x64.

I used XP on a couple of different Athlon 64s (939 3000+ then a 939 4200+) and periodically used it on a Core 2 Duo (E6750) before finally moving completely to Vista.

The very high single threaded speed of newer CPUs and the full DirectSound3D and EAX support of XP make for a great combination. There are no 32bit CPUs that can come even remotely close to the single threaded speed of later CPUs, and yet for most of XP's lifetime games were not utilizing more than one core well. This was a serious limitation at the time because so much focus was being put on adding more cores. Games that were very CPU intensive during the XP era were still benefiting from CPU improvements for several generations, especially when modded (Morrowind is a prime example of this).

Now for some blitting from the back buffer.

Reply 23 of 85, by bjwil1991

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I have a copy of XP Pro x64 on CD and placed the sticker on my Athlon 64 build, yet, it's running XP Pro SP3 32-bit. Fastest for me was an Athlon 64 X2 4000+ and my dad had XP running on an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ back in 2008. Vista ran slower on my dual core than XP.

Discord: https://discord.gg/U5dJw7x
Systems from the Compaq Portable 1 to Ryzen 5 2600X
Twitch: https://twitch.tv/retropcuser

Reply 24 of 85, by blank001

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

As already mentioned the z77 chipset and like the 3770k and a GTX Titan Black would be the fastest XP 32bit install I can think of.

_: K6-III+ 450apz@550, P5A-B, 128Mb CL2, Voodoo 5500 AGP, MX300, AWE64 Gold 32mb, SC-55v2.0
_: Pentium III 1400 S, TUSL2-C, 512Mb CL2, Voodoo 5500 AGP, MX300

Reply 25 of 85, by Lazar81

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I thought about it and am sure, that I am not willing to use such modern hardware like ivy Bridge or so. If I would put this (theoretical) project to reality I would use hardware that was used during XP era. So thinking about a powerful p4 dual core or something from AMD (not so familiar with them) sounds logical to me.

Also I am not willing to use a 64bit XP. I tried this before and it was hell. I don't want to argue about that. I know that others have other opinions on that. But for me 64bit means Win7 or 10.

Ryzen 5 2600X - ASUS ROG STRIX X470-F Gaming - 32GB RAM - Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

Reply 26 of 85, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I thought this thread was about theory like the topic says and not what you should actually build? I did stick some of my old stuff together last year. Combined core 2 duo E8500 with geforce gtx 780TI and my old motherboard also had 8Gb even though WinXP can't see all of it. Drivers for all the hardware was perfectly available. I have not found much retro use for such system though so it has been mostly just stored away since I built it. I just can't see much I could do with it but I would not be able to do with my main pc and I think that has been the interesting part with much older systems I have built in the past.

Reply 28 of 85, by bergqvistjl

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
bofh.fromhell wrote:
A 3770K could very well be the fastest you can go on XP. Atleast Intel supplies drivers for IB on Win XP. Also the fastest graph […]
Show full quote

A 3770K could very well be the fastest you can go on XP.
Atleast Intel supplies drivers for IB on Win XP.
Also the fastest graphics card i can find that officially supports Win XP is the GTX 780TI.

edit: 3770K mentioned above.

I have a GTX 960 that has official Windows XP drivers: https://www.asus.com/uk/Graphics-Cards/STRIXGTX960DC2OC4GD5/ and I ran it on my i7-3770 system running XP (32-bit) fine

Seems faster than the 780: http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-780-Ti-vs … GeForce-GTX-960

IMO if a CPU & accompanying chipset has officially-released drivers for a particular operating system, then it is within that OS's "era".

Reply 29 of 85, by frudi

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Lazar81 wrote:

Right! Just changed topic title to make my direction more clear.

I will assume that XP Era Hardware means hardware released up to the release of the next consumer version of Windows, which would be Vista. Vista was released in January 2007, so that would be about the cut-off time I would consider for the hardware for such a build.

With the period well defined, finding the fastest hardware that fits it is not a problem. Graphics-wise, the choice is simple - nVidia's 8800 GTX. Only decision you need to make is will you settle for one of them, or do you want to run 2 in SLI. This will also guide your selection of platform - if you want SLI, you're best off going for nVidia's 680i-based motherboards with SLI support. If you want to skip SLI, go for Intel's own P965 chipset. As for CPU - the absolute best at the time were Intel's Extreme series Core 2 chips, but you have a choice of either higher clocked dual core (X6800) or slightly lower clocked quad core (QX6700). If Extreme-series chips prove hard or expensive to get, then a cheaper alternative would be the slightly lower clocked regular versions - E6700 dual core or Q6600 quad core.

Reply 30 of 85, by God Of Gaming

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

My main PC is on Z77 with 3770K and GTX 780 and an X-Fi, dualbooting XP and 7. I also have a test machine with a core 2 duo with 1 core disabled and a 7900 GS and audigy, dualbooting 98se and XP. I'm using it to test how the high performance 7900gs compares for 98se vs my voodoo3 PC, but also trying out if it has any advantages for XP over my main PC, and so far haven't found anything, tho I have a lot more games I need to test. What I can say right now tho, AMD graphics cards from HD 5000, HD 6000 and HD 7000 series have some issues with some old XP games like NFS Hot Pursuit 2 (D3D8) or Serious Sam TFE/TSE in OpenGL mode. I also heard Star Wars Republic Commando's bump mapping doesnt work on anything higher than ati x1950xtx or nvidia 7900gtx tho I havent tested that personally yet. So yeah, 980Ti or Titan X maxwell installed on Z77 or X79 is the fastest XP system theoretically, but I wonder if its also 100% compatible, probably not, and that matters too.

1999 Dream PC project | 2001 Dream PC project | 2003 Dream PC project

Reply 31 of 85, by Lazar81

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
frudi wrote:
Lazar81 wrote:

Right! Just changed topic title to make my direction more clear.

I will assume that XP Era Hardware means hardware released up to the release of the next consumer version of Windows, which would be Vista. Vista was released in January 2007, so that would be about the cut-off time I would consider for the hardware for such a build.

With the period well defined, finding the fastest hardware that fits it is not a problem. Graphics-wise, the choice is simple - nVidia's 8800 GTX. Only decision you need to make is will you settle for one of them, or do you want to run 2 in SLI. This will also guide your selection of platform - if you want SLI, you're best off going for nVidia's 680i-based motherboards with SLI support. If you want to skip SLI, go for Intel's own P965 chipset. As for CPU - the absolute best at the time were Intel's Extreme series Core 2 chips, but you have a choice of either higher clocked dual core (X6800) or slightly lower clocked quad core (QX6700). If Extreme-series chips prove hard or expensive to get, then a cheaper alternative would be the slightly lower clocked regular versions - E6700 dual core or Q6600 quad core.

I have slightly different thoughts about the time period. I focussed on early 2008. For it is the year before main support for XP ended. But yes - the hardware you mentioned is what I am thinking about.

Ryzen 5 2600X - ASUS ROG STRIX X470-F Gaming - 32GB RAM - Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

Reply 32 of 85, by chinny22

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I'd say Socket 775 was the end of XP Era (or 771 if we want to include workstations) Alot of these were downgraded to XP for whatever reason.

SLI isnt as easy as you would think as SLI was dropped well before the cards were.
I found this out the hard way when I got 2 GTX 590's. The card is supported but you cant enable SLI
If you want Quad SLI, 7950 GT2 is the final card. I cant remember now but fair to say 4 way SLI gets dropped around the same time.

That said even a single 590 performs better then the Quad 7950's

As an idea this is my High Spec XP build. For the time I'm still on Socket 775, but ultimately I want to jump to Socket 2011 once prices fall some more. GTA SA is probably the most demanding game and runs fine with AA, AF and all that stuff turned up to the max
CPU: Intel Xeon x3320 2.50Ghz
M/B: Asus P5N-D (750i SLI chipset)
Video: 2x GTX 590
Sound: SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Champion PCIe

Reply 33 of 85, by oohms

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

A fast core 2 duo is really what windows XP is about.. go with an E8600, 4gb of ram, XP 32 bit, an X-fi and a slightly newer video card to make your life easier.. something like a GTX 460.. not much else to it

DOS/w3.11/w98 | K6-III+ 400ATZ @ 550 | FIC PA2013 | 128mb SDram | Voodoo 3 3000 | Avancelogic ALS100 | Roland SC-55ST
DOS/w98/XP | Core 2 Duo E4600 | Asus P5PE-VM | 512mb DDR400 | Ti4800SE | ForteMedia FM801

Reply 34 of 85, by Lazar81

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
oohms wrote:

A fast core 2 duo is really what windows XP is about.. go with an E8600, 4gb of ram, XP 32 bit, an X-fi and a slightly newer video card to make your life easier.. something like a GTX 460.. not much else to it

Is there so less software for XP that takes advantage of 4 cores?

Ryzen 5 2600X - ASUS ROG STRIX X470-F Gaming - 32GB RAM - Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

Reply 35 of 85, by Ozzuneoj

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Lazar81 wrote:
oohms wrote:

A fast core 2 duo is really what windows XP is about.. go with an E8600, 4gb of ram, XP 32 bit, an X-fi and a slightly newer video card to make your life easier.. something like a GTX 460.. not much else to it

Is there so less software for XP that takes advantage of 4 cores?

There was practically no reason to own a quad core for gaming in those days. A higher clocked dual core will definitely be better for that time period.

Now for some blitting from the back buffer.

Reply 36 of 85, by God Of Gaming

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

in fact I wonder if a Core 2 Quad is a good idea for gaming over Core 2 Duo. Core 2 Quad has two Core 2 Duo dies on one PCB under the lid, its not a single monolithic chip. And I'm sure theres at least some lattency in communications between the two dualcore dies, kinda like Ryzen has today. This might show in frametime consistensy tests, but no one was doing such tests back when those cpus were relevant. If I would do a 775 XP build, it would be with E8600, or perhaps Xeon X5270 (which is equivalent to the unreleased E8700) and for graphics use GTX 285 or HD 4890. If thats not enough, as I said earlier, Z77 or X79 with 780ti or 980ti or Titan equivalent. Or if I want to be period correct, then an older 975X mobo like Asus P5W DH Deluxe with Core 2 Extreme X6800, and 7900GTX or X1950XTX. Crossfire or SLi is not worth it imo.

1999 Dream PC project | 2001 Dream PC project | 2003 Dream PC project

Reply 38 of 85, by frudi

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Lazar81 wrote:

I have slightly different thoughts about the time period. I focussed on early 2008. For it is the year before main support for XP ended. But yes - the hardware you mentioned is what I am thinking about.

In that case I'd say the best platform would be a P35/P43/P45 motherboard (or X38/X48 if you want to go with SLI) with an E8600. That's the fastest dual core 775 CPU and it overclocks really well, if you're into that - it should hit 4 GHz without needing a voltage increase, so power consumption still stays low. And because of the 10x multiplier on the E8600, 4 GHz nicely syncs up with DDR2 800 or DDR3 1600 memory speed, so you don't need any exotic or expensive memory. Personally I would only go for a quad core if you're looking to also play games that reach well into Vista era, like 2007, 2008 or later. Games before that won't really make use of more than two cores (mostly not even the second core for that matter).

And for graphics you can then go with the GTX 2xx series. Or maybe even go a generation or two newer, but lower tier, to get similar performance at lower power consumption - something like a GTX 460 or 560.

Reply 39 of 85, by FFXIhealer

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I've never had a computer system running Windows XP on anything more than a single-core processor - not even with Hyper-Threading, so I don't know what everyone here is talking about 4GB for. WinXP works supremely smooth with only 2GB of RAM even. At least, that's the sweet spot I hit when working with retro hardware. Outside of games that came out post-XP (i.e. Vista/7 era games), I don't see why they would need any more than this.

2002 - Windows XP
AMD Athlon XP 1.53GHz (1800+ Palomino)
Abit K7A-333
512MB DDR-333
ATI Radeon 7500 64MB AGP
Creative Labs Sound Blaster Live! 5.1 PCI

2002 REBUILD - Windows XP SP3
AMD Athlon XP 2.1GHz (3000+ Barton)
Abit K7A-333 (recapped)
2GB DDR-400
ATI Radeon 9550xl 256MB ACP
Creative Labs Sound Blaster Live! 5.1 PCI

2005 Laptop - Windows XP SP3
Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2
Intel Pentium M 770 2.1GHz
2GB DDR2-533
nVidia GeForce 7800GTX 256MB PCI-e

Everthing multi-core after that was Vista/7/10.

.... Wait no, I sit corrected. I recently put together from parts laying around a microATX system out of a 2.4GHz Pentium Dual-Core and 2GB of DDR2 memory using the LGA775 platform - and the case has a Windows XP serial number sticker on it so I used it...but it has no gaming video card in it, just the built-in Intel chip. So no games.

292dps.png
3smzsb.png
0fvil8.png
lhbar1.png