i have a core 2 quad at 2.83 ghz with xp 32 bit and runs perfect.

for 32 bit windows , it s pretty much overkill. if you need to play newer games than 2010 or so , then you can do so on a modern machine.

Halofiber86 wrote on 2025-11-17, 21:27:

Thank you very much indeed for sharing! This is exactly the type of a practical advice I needed! I do not plan on doing any overclocking though, because I tend to think that lower temperatures and frequencies will allow me to have the system running for many years. Yes, I'm surprised to see the 3.5" floppies last for 30+ years, but yet I feel they do not build the newer electronics to last long these days, and they do it on purpose. So to be on the safer side, I'll keep it as low-temp as possible.

Quad cores will heat up substantially. Stock intel cooler was barely enough at stock settings on the Q6600.
Then I got a Thermalright Macho Rev.B. At 3.0 Ghz, the Q6600 was able to stay under 70° under cinebench stress.

But dual cores runs much cooler. My E8600 on that massive cooler, at 4.0 Ghz, remains well below 60° under cinebench stress.

theelf wrote on 2025-11-18, 00:27:

I dont play games, no interest, but use my XP system for programming/compiling, and 4 cores is amazing, in fact i move to a super cheap i7-3770K 4C/8T and difference was pretty nice from my latest setup, a 775 xeon 4c

Your reply is much appreciated here! You are the first to report any positive difference from the 4 cores vs 2 cores in this thread. Based on so many opposite reports/opinions above, may I humbly suspect that you have had a Windows XP 64-bit system though? Or was it a 32-bit XP indeed?

i7 is flying like a helicopter compared even to i3. I have had an i7 on a MacBookPro, still miss that big guy, only had to swap because of the XCode...

bitzu101 wrote on 2025-11-18, 07:48:

i have a core 2 quad at 2.83 ghz with xp 32 bit and runs perfect.
for 32 bit windows , it s pretty much overkill. if you need to play newer games than 2010 or so , then you can do so on a modern machine.

Thanks a lot for your report! I'm pretty sure now the Core Duo is enough, since there is only one reply that is for the Quad, and it still has to be confirmed to be the 32-bit Windows XP. I have little interest in the games past 2010, prefer the ones that come on CDs and DVDs. This Steam thing is not my cup of tea, maybe I sort of feel cheated more than usual when buying the boxed titles only to realize that I have to download it again on the weekly basis and actually do not own nothing.

Mondodimotori wrote on 2025-11-18, 13:08:

Quad cores will heat up substantially. Stock intel cooler was barely enough at stock settings on the Q6600.
Then I got a Thermalright Macho Rev.B. At 3.0 Ghz, the Q6600 was able to stay under 70° under cinebench stress.
But dual cores runs much cooler. My E8600 on that massive cooler, at 4.0 Ghz, remains well below 60° under cinebench stress.

I have never actually owned a Core 2 Duo or Quad before. Yet may I humbly comment, that my option here is a rare Q8200s. It's not like your 105W 65nm Kentsfield, but a 65W 45nm Yorkfield... However, I'm buying a large cooler for it anyways, your point is correct. My current Tualatin is only 35W, and that Intel heatsink I have for it is already huge compared to the 28W Mendocino I had before.

Halofiber86 wrote on 2025-11-19, 00:37:

Mondodimotori wrote on 2025-11-18, 13:08:

Quad cores will heat up substantially. Stock intel cooler was barely enough at stock settings on the Q6600.
Then I got a Thermalright Macho Rev.B. At 3.0 Ghz, the Q6600 was able to stay under 70° under cinebench stress.
But dual cores runs much cooler. My E8600 on that massive cooler, at 4.0 Ghz, remains well below 60° under cinebench stress.

I have never actually owned a Core 2 Duo or Quad before. Yet may I humbly comment, that my option here is a rare Q8200s. It's not like your 105W 65nm Kentsfield, but a 65W 45nm Yorkfield... However, I'm buying a large cooler for it anyways, your point is correct. My current Tualatin is only 35W, and that Intel heatsink I have for it is already huge compared to the 28W Mendocino I had before.

I have a completely standard Harpertown L5420 – 45 nm, 12 MB cache, 2.5 GHz clock speed.
The G41-based motherboard supports DDR3.
Pros: Cool. I mean low temp, not great.
As for performance, I wouldn't say I'm impressed - The memory controller located in the northbridge killed all the benefits of the improvements..
For early Windows XP - C2D like E8xxx with DDR2, well, that's a classic choice, in my opinion.

Halofiber86 wrote on 2025-11-19, 00:19:

bitzu101 wrote on 2025-11-18, 07:48:

i have a core 2 quad at 2.83 ghz with xp 32 bit and runs perfect.
for 32 bit windows , it s pretty much overkill. if you need to play newer games than 2010 or so , then you can do so on a modern machine.

Thanks a lot for your report! I'm pretty sure now the Core Duo is enough, since there is only one reply that is for the Quad, and it still has to be confirmed to be the 32-bit Windows XP. I have little interest in the games past 2010, prefer the ones that come on CDs and DVDs. This Steam thing is not my cup of tea, maybe I sort of feel cheated more than usual when buying the boxed titles only to realize that I have to download it again on the weekly basis and actually do not own nothing.

the cored 2 duo is more than enough , but make sure it s a e8xxxx or above. as they have a little bit more cache.

i only bought the core 2 quad because i found it on ebay for 8 pounds or something silly like that.

in win xp 32 bit , in that era , the amount of cores is neglijable. it s the single thread speed that matters. and to be hones , for games below 2010 , a core 2 duo is overkill. just make sure to pair it up with a decen gpu. i strongly recommend a gtx 480 or 680 as they are cheap and way overkill for any game in that 2010 era.

check out my pc for inspiration:

4th and last on my retro machines... This one is not that retro

shevalier wrote on 2025-11-19, 05:58:

I have a completely standard Harpertown L5420 – 45 nm, 12 MB cache, 2.5 GHz clock speed. The G41-based motherboard supports DDR3 […]
Show full quote

I have a completely standard Harpertown L5420 – 45 nm, 12 MB cache, 2.5 GHz clock speed.
The G41-based motherboard supports DDR3.
Pros: Cool. I mean low temp, not great.
As for performance, I wouldn't say I'm impressed - The memory controller located in the northbridge killed all the benefits of the improvements..
For early Windows XP - C2D like E8xxx with DDR2, well, that's a classic choice, in my opinion.

Thanks for coming to my topic again) You were extremely helpful with my Radeon HD 2600 pro, that will never be forgotten))
Wow, that Harpertown, it's a server-class Xeon, right? With 12Mb cache it's a double of the E8400's 6Mb, and the TDP is 50W compared to the E8400's 65W. So very appealing. Unfortunately, this is not a choice for me: the GA-G41M-Combo motherboard seems to handle Xeons, but Wolfdale/Allendales, not Harpertown.
I would prefer to stick with this motherboard because I'd love to have it (new in box as it is) as the core component, and build the rest of the system around it.

So you do recommend DDR2? It was my initial choice, as the store has new DDR2 2Gb 800 MHz Patriots, expected to be running cool and require less juice, and I could have them tested at once with the motherboard.
However, Matth79 here suggests 1333 MHz DDR3 to couple with the E8400's 1333 capability. They also have 4Gb 1333MHz DDR3 Patriots in store. I was inclined for buying, but still have second thoughts: the motherboard has two DDR2 slots (8Gb total max) and two DDR3 slots (4Gb total max). If I go with 2x2Gb DDR2 at 800Mhz, I'll populate 2 slots with 2 modules, well within the motherboard's capabilities. But the 4Gb 1333 DDR3 has to go in one slot only, and that's going to be the board's maximum, which feels a little bit uneasy. What do you think?

bitzu101 wrote on 2025-11-19, 08:36:

in win xp 32 bit , in that era , the amount of cores is neglijable. it s the single thread speed that matters. and to be hones , for games below 2010 , a core 2 duo is overkill. just make sure to pair it up with a decen gpu. i strongly recommend a gtx 480 or 680 as they are cheap and way overkill for any game in that 2010 era.

check out my pc for inspiration:

4th and last on my retro machines... This one is not that retro

Hahaha, your beast there is a source of outright white envy))) You have like SIX memory slots)) Are they two for DDR, two for DDR2 and two for DDR3, right? The planned (and already cherished) GA-G41M here has 4 slots, but they can not all be populated at once, two are marked for DDR2, and two for DDR3, and them two DDR types can not be mixed. And I like your case, I'm going pretty much for the modern meshy cases myself, because the classic white ones quite unfortunately tend to turn yellow. I've seen people giving them a UV-treatment and achieve good results, but that bleaching requires the space, proper exhaust and what not that I simply can not have at my place.

As for the GPU, I'm aiming for the modest low-profile Gigabyte 710LP, which happens to be in store's stock, too. See, the wiring in my place is pretty weak, so I can not draw too much juice to the PC. The GTX you have is like 500W alone))) I plan to go with a 350-400 W power supply, and the 710 fits perfectly in with 19W. I have a FX5200 now, which does pretty OK with all the games I play, except the Tomb Raider Underworld, that has newer 3.0 shaders and therefore I have a Radeon HD 2600 PRO for that. Max Payne 3 - the goal of this project - requires just a 8600GT, and the 710 is already 3 times faster. I have little interest in modern Steam games, feel cheated by having to download something on a weekly basis and actually own nothing.

Halofiber86 wrote on 2025-11-19, 10:02:

Thanks for coming to my topic again) You were extremely helpful with my Radeon HD 2600 pro, that will never be forgotten)) Wow, […]
Show full quote

shevalier wrote on 2025-11-19, 05:58:

I have a completely standard Harpertown L5420 – 45 nm, 12 MB cache, 2.5 GHz clock speed. The G41-based motherboard supports DDR3 […]
Show full quote

I have a completely standard Harpertown L5420 – 45 nm, 12 MB cache, 2.5 GHz clock speed.
The G41-based motherboard supports DDR3.
Pros: Cool. I mean low temp, not great.
As for performance, I wouldn't say I'm impressed - The memory controller located in the northbridge killed all the benefits of the improvements..
For early Windows XP - C2D like E8xxx with DDR2, well, that's a classic choice, in my opinion.

Thanks for coming to my topic again) You were extremely helpful with my Radeon HD 2600 pro, that will never be forgotten))
Wow, that Harpertown, it's a server-class Xeon, right? With 12Mb cache it's a double of the E8400's 6Mb, and the TDP is 50W compared to the E8400's 65W. So very appealing. Unfortunately, this is not a choice for me: the GA-G41M-Combo motherboard seems to handle Xeons, but Wolfdale/Allendales, not Harpertown.
I would prefer to stick with this motherboard because I'd love to have it (new in box as it is) as the core component, and build the rest of the system around it.

So you do recommend DDR2? It was my initial choice, as the store has new DDR2 2Gb 800 MHz Patriots, expected to be running cool and require less juice, and I could have them tested at once with the motherboard.
However, Matth79 here suggests 1333 MHz DDR3 to couple with the E8400's 1333 capability. They also have 4Gb 1333MHz DDR3 Patriots in store. I was inclined for buying, but still have second thoughts: the motherboard has two DDR2 slots (8Gb total max) and two DDR3 slots (4Gb total max). If I go with 2x2Gb DDR2 at 800Mhz, I'll populate 2 slots with 2 modules, well within the motherboard's capabilities. But the 4Gb 1333 DDR3 has to go in one slot only, and that's going to be the board's maximum, which feels a little bit uneasy. What do you think?

Windows XP x86 (not the server version) only supports 3.5 GB of RAM.
It is possible that Core 2 Duo on motherboards with the X48 chipset is getting a second wind. I have never used them, so I cannot say for sure.
In my experience, G41 is indeed slightly faster with DDR3 in tests, but in real-world use, the advantage is minimal.
DDR3 is only needed because 4GB DDR2 modules are insanely expensive. (If you want to switch to a 64-bit system)
Again, PCI-e version 1.1 and SATA2 (on ICH7) do not add performance.
Therefore, a high-frequency (from 3 GHz) dual-core processor with maximum cache and any type of memory would be an excellent choice.

shevalier wrote on 2025-11-19, 11:24:

...
Windows XP x86 (not the server version) only supports 3.5 GB of RAM.

This is not exactly the case. Windows XP x86 SP2+ supports only 4 GB address space even when Physical Address Extension (PAE) is enabled. How much RAM Windows XP x86 supports depends on the the devices of the system that use PCI address space at the upper part of the full 4 GB.
E.g. if you have a graphics card that puts its linear frame buffer at 0xC0000000 then Windows XP x86 can use only 3 GB RAM.
Depending on the lowest address used by PCI devices you can have the following available RAM under Windows XP x86:
0xB0000000 -> 2.75 GB
0xC0000000 -> 3 GB
0xD0000000 -> 3.25 GB
0xE0000000 -> 3.5 GB
0xF0000000 -> 3.75 GB

Falcosoft wrote on 2025-11-19, 11:49:

This is not exactly the case. Windows XP x86 SP2+ supports only 4 GB address space even when Physical Address Extension (PAE) is […]
Show full quote

shevalier wrote on 2025-11-19, 11:24:

...
Windows XP x86 (not the server version) only supports 3.5 GB of RAM.

This is not exactly the case. Windows XP x86 SP2+ supports only 4 GB address space even when Physical Address Extension (PAE) is enabled. How much RAM Windows XP x86 supports depends on the the devices of the system that use PCI address space at the upper part of the full 4 GB.
E.g. if you have a graphics card that puts its linear frame buffer at 0xC0000000 then Windows XP x86 can use only 3 GB RAM.
Depending on the lowest address used by PCI devices you can have the following available RAM under Windows XP x86:
0xB0000000 -> 2.75 GB
0xC0000000 -> 3 GB
0xD0000000 -> 3.25 GB
0xE0000000 -> 3.5 GB
0xF0000000 -> 3.75 GB

From a practical point of view, this will still turn into 2*2 GB to support dual-channel RAM mode.

Halofiber86 wrote on 2025-11-19, 00:37:

I have never actually owned a Core 2 Duo or Quad before. Yet may I humbly comment, that my option here is a rare Q8200s. It's not like your 105W 65nm Kentsfield, but a 65W 45nm Yorkfield... However, I'm buying a large cooler for it anyways, your point is correct. My current Tualatin is only 35W, and that Intel heatsink I have for it is already huge compared to the 28W Mendocino I had before.

As stated by others, shilling huge quantities of money on a quad core for WinXP gaming may be overkill. Do it only if you can find a great deal (like I did with my overkill HD6970 for 20€ only)

shevalier wrote on 2025-11-19, 11:24:

DDR3 is only needed because 4GB DDR2 modules are insanely expensive. (If you want to switch to a 64-bit system)

Having bought a 2x2GB DDR2 module for my 775 build (a Corsair tight OC ram), I can confirm them being expensive.
Mind you, not DDR4/5 expensive, but prepare to shill up to 50€ with shipping for one good module.
Also consider that it will only see 3.5GB of ram. 64bit WinXP I feel is kinda pointless for gaming.

Falcosoft wrote on 2025-11-19, 11:49:

shevalier wrote on 2025-11-19, 11:24:

...
Windows XP x86 (not the server version) only supports 3.5 GB of RAM.

This is not exactly the case. Windows XP x86 SP2+ supports only 4 GB address space even when Physical Address Extension (PAE) is enabled. How much RAM Windows XP x86 supports depends on the the devices of the system that use PCI address space at the upper part of the full 4 GB.

With a patched kernel you can have more than 4GB using PAE (or actually use all of your 4 GBs instead of 3.5 GB), but some device drivers may not work properly (if I remember correctly, Radeons work but Nvidia graphics may be problematic, depending on driver version).

if you intend to use the system for anything other than gaming the extra cores will be quite noticeable

back when I was still daily driving an XP machine I upgraded from C2D to C2Q (well xeon actually) and the difference was very significant

Azarien wrote on 2025-11-19, 13:49:

With a patched kernel you can have more than 4GB using PAE (or actually use all of your 4 GBs instead of 3.5 GB), but some device drivers may not work properly (if I remember correctly, Radeons work but Nvidia graphics may be problematic, depending on driver version).

You can install Windows 2003 Server x86 or Windows XP AMD64.
But let's be honest, where 4GB of RAM is not enough, it will not be very comfortable with a low-frequency outdated quad-core.

maxtherabbit wrote on 2025-11-19, 14:40:

if you intend to use the system for anything other than gaming the extra cores will be quite noticeable

back when I was still daily driving an XP machine I upgraded from C2D to C2Q (well xeon actually) and the difference was very significant

For example, using up-to-date antivirus software is already +1 core.
But I wouldn't look for ways to connect to the Internet from a computer running Windows XP.
And you don't need antivirus software on a local network.
For pleasant office work, World, Excel, Visio+ Outlook now require more than a Pentium Silver 4-core processor on DDR4.
And if you also use Microsoft Teams...
But you're not seriously going to work on the Socket 775 platform, are you?

shevalier wrote on 2025-11-19, 11:24:

In my experience, G41 is indeed slightly faster with DDR3 in tests, but in real-world use, the advantage is minimal. DDR3 is onl […]
Show full quote

In my experience, G41 is indeed slightly faster with DDR3 in tests, but in real-world use, the advantage is minimal.
DDR3 is only needed because 4GB DDR2 modules are insanely expensive. (If you want to switch to a 64-bit system)
Again, PCI-e version 1.1 and SATA2 (on ICH7) do not add performance.
Therefore, a high-frequency (from 3 GHz) dual-core processor with maximum cache and any type of memory would be an excellent choice.

Thanks for your kind and insightful advice again! I'l go with two DDR2 800Mhz 2Gb Patriots then, they should be working in any case.
This is not supposed to be a top system, just an environment testbed for some software patch. Yet with some kind advice and shared experience, reasonable adjustments can be made and better choices taken.

Falcosoft wrote on 2025-11-19, 11:49:

This is not exactly the case. Windows XP x86 SP2+ supports only 4 GB address space even when Physical Address Extension (PAE) is […]
Show full quote

shevalier wrote on 2025-11-19, 11:24:

...
Windows XP x86 (not the server version) only supports 3.5 GB of RAM.

This is not exactly the case. Windows XP x86 SP2+ supports only 4 GB address space even when Physical Address Extension (PAE) is enabled. How much RAM Windows XP x86 supports depends on the the devices of the system that use PCI address space at the upper part of the full 4 GB.
E.g. if you have a graphics card that puts its linear frame buffer at 0xC0000000 then Windows XP x86 can use only 3 GB RAM.
Depending on the lowest address used by PCI devices you can have the following available RAM under Windows XP x86:
0xB0000000 -> 2.75 GB
0xC0000000 -> 3 GB
0xD0000000 -> 3.25 GB
0xE0000000 -> 3.5 GB
0xF0000000 -> 3.75 GB

Well, good people, as soon as I have the system running, I'll come back and report here all the information. I have an shareware Everest Trial Edition, which works on a new system for about a month. It will for sure report all frequencies (memory, bus, what not), and hopefully the memory status.

Mondodimotori wrote on 2025-11-19, 13:03:

As stated by others, shilling huge quantities of money on a quad core for WinXP gaming may be overkill. Do it only if you can fi […]
Show full quote

As stated by others, shilling huge quantities of money on a quad core for WinXP gaming may be overkill. Do it only if you can find a great deal (like I did with my overkill HD6970 for 20€ only)

shevalier wrote on 2025-11-19, 11:24:

DDR3 is only needed because 4GB DDR2 modules are insanely expensive. (If you want to switch to a 64-bit system)

Having bought a 2x2GB DDR2 module for my 775 build (a Corsair tight OC ram), I can confirm them being expensive.
Mind you, not DDR4/5 expensive, but prepare to shill up to 50€ with shipping for one good module.
Also consider that it will only see 3.5GB of ram. 64bit WinXP I feel is kinda pointless for gaming.

I'm happy to report, that you're completely right! The Q8200s that I see available is 4x more expensive, than the E8400, and that before the shipment. The money saved can be surely put to a better use with that old car of mine, which is also much loved and more practical btw ))

Azarien wrote on 2025-11-19, 13:49:

With a patched kernel you can have more than 4GB using PAE (or actually use all of your 4 GBs instead of 3.5 GB), but some device drivers may not work properly (if I remember correctly, Radeons work but Nvidia graphics may be problematic, depending on driver version).

That is interesting, thank you for your input. I know they have written patches for Windows 98, never gave a thought about the XP. Yet I feel sort of wary about kernel patching, just have not come across any practical situation that would require it. In this particular case, the success already depends on a software patch that is supposed to run under XP 32 bit, and is already tested to fail under Windows 7 (otherwise a very predictable and versatile system). Unfortunately I'm only into some iOS development, I can not inspect the patch to see what is the problem, so the plan is to provide the proper environment and hope it works.