ux-3 wrote on 2025-09-23, 18:42:

I can try. ;-) I am using a GTX 970, which is not officially supported under WinXP. I modded the 36x driver according to the lin […]
Show full quote

Barley wrote on 2025-09-23, 12:27:

Can you clarify what you did and what your results were?

From what I understand, you are using a GTX 970 card with a "digital connection to the display." Is that DVI? HDMI? DP?

Are you saying that with 355.98, you have working scaling options in the Nvidia Control Panel?

I can try. 😉
I am using a GTX 970, which is not officially supported under WinXP. I modded the 36x driver according to the link provided above. I now need to mod the 355.98, but I just cut and pasted the modded file from the 36x driver instead. I used a DVI cable to an old DELL U2412M. But I just checked, I also have a working scaling option with display port (black bars left and right) to the old DELL. The 970 can also output just the original pixels with the "no scaling" option. The card then uses say sharp 800x600 pixels, with black borders on all sides on the DELL. As far as the DELL goes, scaling works in DVI and DP.

As the DELL screen has no HDMI, I just linked up the card to my 4k philips with HDMI.
Results on 4k: No scaling option with HDMI nor DP. However, I could not run WindowsXP in native 4k anyway. When I picked the resolution, the screen went black and never came back.

Just in case you wonder, if I switch the SSD and run the same hardware with win11, I do have all the options in 4k in HDMI and DP. And they seem to work at the native 4k resolution just fine. Atm, I can't check win7, I'd have to restore an image first.

Thanks for the response. What I really wanted to know was if your Nvidia Control Panel "Adjust desktop size and position" section 2 had scaling options available? I think in reading your answer you are saying 'yes?'. I have never been able to get these options.

However, I recently learned that one could run a cmd command to force the driver to do aspect ratio scaling, and it is working well for me, even though I can't change the options in the Control Panel UI.

If you test you'll find Radeons are more suited for builds like these. A given GeForce is either not as compatible or not as fast.

Barley wrote on 2025-09-25, 20:33:

I have never been able to get these options.

I did only get these "control panel" options with the older 355.98. A later XP driver didn't work.
I only got them when the driver could supported the display's native resolution. 4k screen was out.
I only got them on DVI and DP. Didn't test analogue VGA.

Your mileage may vary.

vvbee wrote on 2025-09-25, 21:06:

If you test you'll find Radeons are more suited for builds like these. A given GeForce is either not as compatible or not as fast.

Interesting point.

My choice was based on availabilty in my storage shelves, which cover PCIe with GTX 460, 560, 660, 960, 970 and 1070.
Without mod,GTX 960 would have been the fastest option for XP, with mod the 970 takes that place.
On the other end, Win11 will (iirc) only suppport my 900s. So as long as I want to keep both OS running on the machine, I could only use the 900 series.

Now lets talk Radeon. (I assume that aspect/scaling is working with them?)
In what way do you consider them to be more suited? As this rig is supposed to run Win 11 incapable stuff, speed is likely not the key issue, if a 970 is used.
So where do you consider compatibility as critical? And what card family would you consider most suitable?

My next slowest rendering option is GF4200ti with Core2 CPU.

vvbee wrote on 2025-09-25, 21:06:

If you test you'll find Radeons are more suited for builds like these. A given GeForce is either not as compatible or not as fast.

I can agree that Radeons are pretty much plug and play and just work in Windows XP. I have experience with R7 260X, R7 270, and R9 280X. All of them have XP drivers (not the same one for each), and all do aspect ratio scaling pretty flawlessly.

In fact, I used to only use Radeons for Windows XP...until I learned the driver hack for the GTX 900 series, and figured out the nuances between the different driver versions, cables, and hacks to get aspect ratio scaling working on Nvidia cards in Windows XP. Further, SGSSAA has been a revelation to me for playing DX9 games. As far as I know, that's only possible on Nvidia cards, using Profile Inspector.

Now I'm pretty much exclusively using Nvidia. And this is coming for a lifelong ATI/AMD fanboy.

Last thing is that GTX 970, GTX 980, GTX 980 ti, and TITAN are all faster than the fastest compatible AMD card, the R9 280X.

Barley wrote on 2025-09-26, 12:15:

As far as I know, that's only possible on Nvidia cards, using Profile Inspector.

I'll take the bait: Can I use the latest version of profile inspector with all nvidia drivers? It says win7-win11, so I guess not. If not, which/where to look for the 355.98 inspector?
What exactly do I need to do?

For me, the benefits of using a powerful Nvidia GPU for WinXP are PhysX (e.g. in Mirror's Edge) and being able to force SGSSAA, Ambient Occlusion and Low Latency via Nvidia Profile Inspector.

In terms of compatibility, I very rarely play games that use DirectX 7 or lower on my WinXP rig, so I'm not bothered with any issues that may arise from that.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-09-26, 12:26:

For me, the benefits of using a powerful Nvidia GPU for WinXP are PhysX (e.g. in Mirror's Edge) and being able to force SGSSAA, Ambient Occlusion and Low Latency via Nvidia Profile Inspector.

Mirror's Edge needs XP?

In terms of compatibility, I very rarely play games that use DirectX 7 or lower on my WinXP rig, so I'm not bothered with any issues that may arise from that.

That is why I hope to get by with a GF4 4200ti as a fallback.

ux-3 wrote on 2025-09-26, 12:31:

Mirror's Edge needs XP?

Nah, it works just fine on my Win11 LTSC system.

I just listed it as one of the later WinXP compatible games which uses PhysX. Another example would be Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2, which uses both EAX 4.0 and PhysX, and is therefore best played under WinXP.

ux-3 wrote on 2025-09-26, 12:26:

Barley wrote on 2025-09-26, 12:15:

As far as I know, that's only possible on Nvidia cards, using Profile Inspector.

I'll take the bait: Can I use the latest version of profile inspector with all nvidia drivers? It says win7-win11, so I guess not. If not, which/where to look for the 355.98 inspector?
What exactly do I need to do?

I think I use version 1.9.6.6, and I'm pretty sure I found a link right here on Vogons.

Yup. Right here: Re: Best WinXP Video Card

ux-3 wrote on 2025-09-26, 11:40:

My choice was based on availabilty in my storage shelves, which cover PCIe with GTX 460, 560, 660, 960, 970 and 1070.
Without mod,GTX 960 would have been the fastest option for XP, with mod the 970 takes that place.
On the other end, Win11 will (iirc) only suppport my 900s. So as long as I want to keep both OS running on the machine, I could only use the 900 series.

Out of those, use the 560 in XP and a newer one in the rest. The Ti 4200 can't be much better than the 560 in compatibility so you can then put a DX6-7 card in the Ti build.

Barley wrote on 2025-09-26, 12:15:

Last thing is that GTX 970, GTX 980, GTX 980 ti, and TITAN are all faster than the fastest compatible AMD card, the R9 280X.

The 900 series will limit you to DX8 or so but XP would support much older. That's more of a recipe for multiple builds.

Barley wrote on 2025-09-26, 12:48:

Yup. Right here: Re: Best WinXP Video Card

Thanks!

vvbee wrote on 2025-09-26, 16:37:

Out of those, use the 560 in XP and a newer one in the rest.

I am not really sure if I still have a true 560, I might. 560ti I have for sure.
But why exactly 560(ti)? What feature ends with 560? It would be nice to understand your selection.

The Ti 4200 can't be much better than the 560 in compatibility so you can then put a DX6-7 card in the Ti build.

The Voodoo2 SLI is a DX6 compatible card, isn't it? Not sure, but Banshee was, iirc.
The next fallback after the Ti4200 would be a Voodoo5 5500, Voodoo3 3000 or something from that age group.

[/quote]The 900 series will limit you to DX8 or so but XP would support much older. That's more of a recipe for multiple builds.
[/quote]
This thread basically deals with multiple OS on one build. I really like to have win 11 on the same machine, so I can quickly test if the game runs on win11. If it does just as well, I let it run on win11. So far I was surprised, how many titles do work on win 11, once the cd copy protection is deactivated with their later patches. Or their Installer is replaced with a 32 bit version. I had not expected that rate of success.
So if the end result is that most of my older games will do win 11, then I may just split up the machine. Upgrade this one to 1070 and create another XP machine with a card best suited for the rest. It is an experiment. I don't know the outcome. But its fun!

As far as old Nvidia cards go, my knowledge tells me that GF 5 is the last one with support for some 8-bit texture model or such. I remember GF5 as loud and bitchy. While my ti4200 has a nice and quiet aftermarket copper cooler. So I thought this and V2 SLI should handle most win98 and early XP age games.

vvbee wrote on 2025-09-26, 16:37:

Barley wrote on 2025-09-26, 12:15:

Last thing is that GTX 970, GTX 980, GTX 980 ti, and TITAN are all faster than the fastest compatible AMD card, the R9 280X.

The 900 series will limit you to DX8 or so but XP would support much older. That's more of a recipe for multiple builds.

After re-reading your post, I realize I misunderstood you. Your point is valid (and understood!) that for older games, a Nvidia card would either be slower, or not compatible, vs. a Radeon.

ux-3 wrote on 2025-09-26, 18:56:

The next fallback after the Ti4200 would be a Voodoo5 5500, Voodoo3 3000 or something from that age group.

If you select the GPUs for this build carefully then you won't have much need for the other system. Replace one of the Voodoos with a Matrox G400 in that build and put it into this build, then have Windows 98 in a VM and passthrough the Voodoo.