I think you can get a E8400 / P35 board for cheap these days.
Or go with AMD, 6400+ ? A bit power hungry though...

Or does it have to be period correct hardware?
Edit: typo

There are too many options for building a Windows XP system.

Do you prefer period correct hardware?
Do you prefer Intel or AMD?
Do you want modern hardware using PCIe or SATA?

I chose Athlon 64 in socket 754 because I never had it and it's a slightly better "version" of Athlon XP, with quieter coolers available. It can handle all games until 2005 and if we exclude late, very demanding FPS games (e.g. Crisis) / racing games (Need for Speed Carbon) then it can handle games until 2010.

A Core2Quad or Phenom II x4 will be able to handle everything until 2010.

Core2Duo and Athlon 64 x2 are somewhere in between.

P4 and Athlon XP are a better choice for Windows 98 or dual boot with Windows XP.

predator_085 wrote on 2025-04-20, 07:12:

For my second rig, I want to get into Windows XP territory to have a nice rig for playing games from 2002 to 2005.

So far, I know nothing about that hardware area; I have only a little knowledge about the Win 98 gaming area I accumulated when building my Win 98se gaming system.

Which CPU/mainboard combo would you recommend for a neat Windows XP system from 2002 to 2005 gaming?

1) Budget (assuming US based) ?
2) Period correctness (PSU/HDD included, or can you "live" with modern one) ?
3) Details/resolution used for games ?

Note : You WILL NOT be able to play games from 2005 at max. details at 1600x1200/1080p on 2005 period accurate hardware (examples : Doom3/Far Cry/FEAR/Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory).
Hardware :
CPU for December 2005 = Athlon 64 x2 4800+ (S939) [alternative FX-57 or Opteron 180], or Pentium Extreme Edtion 840 (alternative Pentium 4 670).
GPU for December 2005 = X1800 XT/7800 GTX 512MB.

PD2JK wrote on 2025-04-20, 07:15:

I think you can get a E8400 / P35 board for cheap these days. Or go with AMD, 6400+ ? A bit power hungry though... […]
Show full quote

I think you can get a E8400 / P35 board for cheap these days.
Or go with AMD, 6400+ ? A bit power hungry though...

Or does it have to be period correct hardware?
Edit: typo

Thanks for your reply. I am open to many different strategies. Would not mind if peroid correct but I am also open to non peroid corrrect options. Depends on the price point and the avaibility.

@AlexZ @agent_x007 Like mentioned above I am open to many different ways. Can bei either peroid correct or non-period correct.

@agent_x007 I am from Europe (Austria) and budget is between 500 and 800 euros.

My prefered resolution is 1024x768. I think most games look the best in that resolution.

predator_085 wrote on 2025-04-20, 11:02:

Thanks for your reply. I am open to many different strategies. Would not mind if peroid correct but I am also open to non peroid corrrect options. Depends on the price point and the avaibility.

Period correct or not is really the only decision to be made, if not then just grab any decent hardware from 2009-2013, throw in an X-Fi sound card and it'll handle any game that runs on XP.

As part of a bulk buy there was a hp compaq elite 8300 amongst them I’ve maxed the mem to 16gb but still need to source a i7-3770k cpu it’ll use 4gb for xp and 16gb for the dual boot win7 or any other also need a low profile gpu suitable for either.
Been thinking bout building a case cuz I lucked out with tower cases none of my sff fit in the tower cases all the pci slots are in the wrong spot.

X97 chipset with a Broadwell
Or you could go with anything that will run an i7 3770k, that will run any XP game and with a GTX 960 any settings you want.

Of course it's out of time but will do the job but not as cheap as the Core2 E and Q series options.

predator_085 wrote on 2025-04-20, 11:02:

My prefered resolution is 1024x768. I think most games look the best in that resolution.

Resolution will largely dictate performance needed. Do you know what monitor you plan on using? If you're using a CRT, then 1024x768 would be a good target to shoot for. If you're going with an LCD, then 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 would be the ideal resolution.

Also worth noting is 2005-era games started getting support for widescreen resolutions. So you could even go with 1680x1050 or 1920x1200, depending on the monitor.

If you want some build ideas, you could check out my own XP build: Ultimate Windows XP Build (Intel i7-3770k / GTX 980Ti / 24" Asus ProArt display / X-Fi Titanium)

It went from an E8400/E8600 build to an i7-3770k. It runs everything up to late 2000's with performance to spare.

Windows XP hardware compatibility spans nearly 20 years. Yet, I've found that Windows XP and a lot of 32-bit software will take as much compute performance as you can throw at it. If you aren't nostalgic for particular hardware of the era, I recommend that you set a budget for each component, and then buy the highest performance component (yet still compatible with XP) within your budget. I recommend you stay with major components introduced before 2015 to maintain compatibility with XP. Anything later gets into "unsupported" territory which I don't suggest to anyone who doesn't like to really tinker with hardware and software.

I don't know the purchasing power of the Euro in your market, but I'll base a recommendation on US Dollars which should be a relatively close estimate. Some parts you will only get used these days for reasonable prices, but other parts you can get new for a little extra life. I assume you already have accessories (monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc.), so this is the budget and suggested part that I would get if I was spending my money:

Motherboard - $50 - Z97, H97, Z87, or H87 Motherboard (Used)
Processor - $100 - i7-4790k (Used)
RAM - $15 - 8GB DDR3-1600 (New or Used)
GPU - $50 - GTX 960
Storage - $50 - 1TB SATA SSD (New)
Power Supply - $80 - 750W ATX (New)
Case - $50 - ATX or MATX Case (New or Used)

Optional:
Optical Drive - $20 - SATA DVD +/- RW Drive (New or Used)
Sound - $30 - PCIE X-Fi Titanium
Networking - $15 - PCIE Realtek RTL8111 Network Card (New)
Storage 2 - $50 - SATA 2TB HDD (New)

This should all fit within your budget. You can do a little better on individual components, but this set will give you an awesome machine that will play the original Crysis high settings at more than 60 FPS at 1080p. It will even handle XP-compatible games released in the 2010's without any trouble.

The optional components are completely personal preference. I still have optical disks in my collection, so all of my builds have at least one optical drive (most have 2). Integrated sound on the motherboard will likely work just fine with Windows XP. If you want something a little extra, an X-Fi will give you positional sound in a lot of games from the late-90's to the mid-00's. At the same time, some integrated network cards will not work with XP (too new). If you need to network, a cheap Realtek network card will do the job. Finally, I like to use a spinning disk for extra storage (drivers, software installers, etc.), but not as the boot/application drive. I also assign the virtual memory to the spinning disk for a little better I/O performance.

A few months ago got a Gigabyte GA-EP43-UDL3 r1.0 board (soc775) plus Q9550 + 4Gb ram (4x 1Gb) + heatsink + backplate for $50 plus $20 shipping USA. All those parts were released around 2008-2009 originally with perfect XP support.
Also got a GTX 750Ti SC 2Gb for $32 USA with shipping to go with it if my GTX 960 4Gb dies.....
Not sure about cost in Europe...

fosterwj03 wrote on 2025-04-20, 16:54:

Motherboard - $50 - Z97, H97, Z87, or H87 Motherboard (Used)
Processor - $100 - i7-4790k (Used)

This is a bit more overkill than needed for an XP machine (even Sandy/Ivy bridge era stuff is overkill). And may be a bit more complicated to install re: drivers.

RAM - $15 - 8GB DDR3-1600 (New or Used)

32-bit XP can only use up to 3.25GB so 8GB is a bit wasted.

This sort of setup might be better for a dual boot Windows 7 or Vista along side XP.

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-04-20, 18:03:

This is a bit more overkill than needed for an XP machine (even Sandy/Ivy bridge era stuff is overkill). And may be a bit more […]
Show full quote

fosterwj03 wrote on 2025-04-20, 16:54:

Motherboard - $50 - Z97, H97, Z87, or H87 Motherboard (Used)
Processor - $100 - i7-4790k (Used)

This is a bit more overkill than needed for an XP machine (even Sandy/Ivy bridge era stuff is overkill). And may be a bit more complicated to install re: drivers.

RAM - $15 - 8GB DDR3-1600 (New or Used)

32-bit XP can only use up to 3.25GB so 8GB is a bit wasted.

This sort of setup might be better for a dual boot Windows 7 or Vista along side XP.

I'm using an i7-9700k for my Win2k/WinXP/Vista/Win7 system right now, so I actually consider Haswell/Broadwell somewhat old school 😀 .

In all seriousness, the OP will likely need to download the latest drivers for used components regardless of the generation unless the component happens to get sold with a driver disk. 80 and 90-series drivers exist for Windows XP, and most integrated motherboard devices from that generation will work with Windows XP (with the exception of Intel networking which I mentioned in my post). All the OP will need is a spec sheet for the purchased motherboard to locate appropriate drivers online.

The OP could also use SATA options in the BIOS from that generation instead of AHCI if he/she doesn't want to slipstream AHCI drivers onto a custom XP installation disk.

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-04-20, 18:03:

This is a bit more overkill than needed for an XP machine (even Sandy/Ivy bridge era stuff is overkill). And may be a bit more […]
Show full quote

fosterwj03 wrote on 2025-04-20, 16:54:

Motherboard - $50 - Z97, H97, Z87, or H87 Motherboard (Used)
Processor - $100 - i7-4790k (Used)

This is a bit more overkill than needed for an XP machine (even Sandy/Ivy bridge era stuff is overkill). And may be a bit more complicated to install re: drivers.

RAM - $15 - 8GB DDR3-1600 (New or Used)

32-bit XP can only use up to 3.25GB so 8GB is a bit wasted.

This sort of setup might be better for a dual boot Windows 7 or Vista along side XP.

Thats not quite true.
Each application can only used up to 4Gb of RAM or 3.25Gb as reported but it can address up to 64Gb of RAM, so the first application can use 4Gb of RAM, and then the next app can also use 4Gb of RAM and so on up until the total is used, in this instance 8Gb, but could be up to 64Gb.

It doesnt use the RAM in the same way as older OSs did. In Win98 if you have 256Mb of RAM then all the running apps share that 256Mb of RAM, but WinXP with /PAE doesnt work like that.
More than 4Gb of RAM can be used, but not in the way people usually think about RAM usage.

I also think that 4GB DDR3 modules are a bit more common. But sure, a pair of 2GB modules would work fine, too. Just buy high performance modules at a good price. If 16 GB total is cheaper, go for it.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2025-04-20, 18:24:

Thats not quite true.
Each application can only used up to 4Gb of RAM or 3.25Gb as reported but it can address up to 64Gb of RAM, so the first application can use 4Gb of RAM, and then the next app can also use 4Gb of RAM and so on up until the total is used, in this instance 8Gb, but could be up to 64Gb.

Hadn't heard this before. Some quick Googling though makes it seem like it requires a patch to enable?

Shponglefan wrote on 2025-04-20, 18:46:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2025-04-20, 18:24:

Thats not quite true.
Each application can only used up to 4Gb of RAM or 3.25Gb as reported but it can address up to 64Gb of RAM, so the first application can use 4Gb of RAM, and then the next app can also use 4Gb of RAM and so on up until the total is used, in this instance 8Gb, but could be up to 64Gb.

Hadn't heard this before. Some quick Googling though makes it seem like it requires a patch to enable?

It should be enabled when you install more than 4Gb of RAM

Just a quick observation about RAM. My WinXP rig has 16 GB since it used to be my "work from home" system back in the day. WinXP sees 3.21 GB from that, and isn't bothered by the rest, so it doesn't hurt to have the extra RAM installed. I never tried PAE under WinXP, but I did keep the 16 GB since I also have Win7 x64 on that rig, as that was its primary OS while I was using it for work.

That said, before 2007 or so, it was rare to see games that could actually utilize more than 2 GB RAM. You can easily test this with MSI Afterburner. And for the more demanding AAA titles made in 2007 or later (e.g. Crysis and BioShock) you probably want to play them under Win7+ anyway, since many of them can use DirectX 10 for improved visuals.

Some old PAE and XP info.:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080429225517/htt … pae/paedrv.mspx
http://web.archive.org/web/20080504052933/htt … PAE/pae_os.mspx
http://web.archive.org/web/20070127142810/htt … n/sp2mempr.mspx
My XP box has PAE enabled, did it itself with a service pack update because the Q9650 has DEP hardware, "My computer" still shows 3.25Gb but in Task Man it shows more. PAE above 4GB is paged in a 32bit OS like the old EMS was in DOS days iirc.

fosterwj03 wrote on 2025-04-20, 16:54:

Motherboard - $50 - Z97, H97, Z87, or H87 Motherboard (Used)
Processor - $100 - i7-4790k (Used)

You can save a buttload by just buying a remanufactured x79 Xeon mobo.