This sounds more like a Win7 PC....

vad4r wrote on 2021-05-12, 05:39:

This sounds more like a Win7 PC....

Yes this is Windows 7 era hardware, but my point was to build an overpowered Windows XP system, to play older D3D7-9 games that have issues in Windows 10, or extra features like EAX or DirectDraw hardware acceleration in Windows XP.
I chose the 32-bit version for maximum compatibility with legacy software/games; I don't need a 64-bit Windows 7 system when I already have a 64-bit Windows 10 system.

Good for dual boot, that's for sure. I myself don't like overkill builds either, but it won't have any problem running XP era games.

RandomStranger wrote on 2021-05-12, 06:11:

Good for dual boot, that's for sure. I myself don't like overkill builds either, but it won't have any problem running XP era games.

If I do dual boot on this machine, I'll probably install a 64-bit Linux Distro and run Steam/Proton for DX10+ games.

retroboy87 wrote on 2021-05-12, 06:25:

RandomStranger wrote on 2021-05-12, 06:11:

Good for dual boot, that's for sure. I myself don't like overkill builds either, but it won't have any problem running XP era games.

If I do dual boot on this machine, I'll probably install a 64-bit Linux Distro and run Steam/Proton for DX10+ games.

sounds like a plan! the machine will handle it all very nicely and dual boot makes full 'modern' use of the hardware. With the linux distro you'll also be able to go online and do 'regular stuff' without either switching machine or compromising with XP

to be honest I'm not keen on overkill builds either, i think it's just related to knowing when an OS can't really take advantage of modern hardware fully but it doesn't really matter - if it runs it runs, still faster than any 32 bit configuration i can think of

Have you guys never seen Tim the Toolman Taylor or Jeremy Clarkson? you can never have enough power!!!!!!!

But seriously I like overkill builds. Running an OS on the the most modern hardware supported.
Its true the hardware cant be used to its maximum potential but its now a case of the OS been the bottleneck which just appeals to me for some reason.

I like it retroboy87, I've got a similar 775 based build (Price hasn't dropped enough on the the 1155 motherboard I've in mind) Titanium Fatal1ty Champion (wanted the extra bling) and pair of GTX590's only to find XP drivers don't support SLI. Even still that rig plays all my EAX games at full details even after maxing out or the display enhancements in the NVidia drivers, really helps in something like GTA SA.

chinny22 wrote on 2021-05-12, 08:51:

Have you guys never seen Tim the Toolman Taylor or Jeremy Clarkson? you can never have enough power!!!!!!! […]
Show full quote

Have you guys never seen Tim the Toolman Taylor or Jeremy Clarkson? you can never have enough power!!!!!!!

But seriously I like overkill builds. Running an OS on the the most modern hardware supported.
Its true the hardware cant be used to its maximum potential but its now a case of the OS been the bottleneck which just appeals to me for some reason.

I like it retroboy87, I've got a similar 775 based build (Price hasn't dropped enough on the the 1155 motherboard I've in mind) Titanium Fatal1ty Champion (wanted the extra bling) and pair of GTX590's only to find XP drivers don't support SLI. Even still that rig plays all my EAX games at full details even after maxing out or the display enhancements in the NVidia drivers, really helps in something like GTA SA.

the SLI example is a good one

to make a technically poor car analogy of overkill systems:

it's like driving a superb V12 but only being able to use the power from the cylinders 'on the left'

it may still be more powerful than the old 6 in line you had before but it somehow feels 'wrong'

not 'wrong' enough to stop trying it or to become all 'purist' about it, but just an odd almost aesthetic feeling of wrongness!

still, it's fun i admit

My hardware configuration may be a little overkill for Windows XP/DX9 and earlier games, but at least I didn't go with LGA 2011 with a 6+ core hyperthreaded i7, SLI 780 Tis or a Kepler Titan, quad channel RAM, and a 2TB SSD; that would be a total waste for Windows XP. I don't think a GTX 460 is that overpowered for XP, I mean it does support DX10-12, but it's only a 1GB GDDR5 PCIe card. The newest game I plan on playing in XP is the Witcher 2, which is a 32-bit DX9 game, so it will run on this computer. It won't run as well as it does on my i7 6700k/980 Ti Windows 10 PC, but it will run better than on an Xbox 360.

If it wasn't for Steam DRM and Valve dropping XP support, I'd even try playing the original version of Skyrim on this computer, but my serious Skyrim playing is reserved for the Special Edition on my Win10 PC.

For the original version of Skyrim to remove the Steam requirement you just need to use Steamless to strip the Steam requirement from the launcher and game executable.
If it's a new install then import the .reg as well

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Bethesda Softworks\Skyrim]
"installed path"="D:\\Games\\Skyrim\\"

For SE steamless works as well but the game is 64bit and also requires Vista.

DosFreak wrote on 2021-05-12, 17:34:

For the original version of Skyrim to remove the Steam requirement you just need to use Steamless to strip the Steam requirement […]
Show full quote

For the original version of Skyrim to remove the Steam requirement you just need to use Steamless to strip the Steam requirement from the launcher and game executable.
If it's a new install then import the .reg as well

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Bethesda Softworks\Skyrim]
"installed path"="D:\\Games\\Skyrim\\"

For SE steamless works as well but the game is 64bit and also requires Vista.

Thanks for the info, I might try this with Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition as well.

I used a GTX 970 on Windows XP, with 368.81 Nvidia drivers. The performance in games was not great, lots of microstutters; benchmarks were fine.

Since then, I am trying to use earlier / more period correct graphics drivers in XP.

mihai wrote on 2021-05-12, 21:26:

I used a GTX 970 on Windows XP, with 368.81 Nvidia drivers. The performance in games was not great, lots of microstutters; benchmarks were fine.

Since then, I am trying to use earlier / more period correct graphics drivers in XP.

That hasn't been my experience at all with a 98oti. There have been several threads about it, I haven't found any good evidence that older video cards are better than newer ones when it comes to the experience of actually using the computer.

I think the OPs computer is pretty well balanced for XP games. There is no reason to suffer through 1280x1024 @ 45 fps just to be period correct if you don't care about being period correct.

I played NOLF 1 in XP, with gtx 970 / 368.81 drivers - the framerate was high, but there were microstutters - the game was quite unplayable; Windows 7 64 bit drivers were perfect.

This is why I suggested OP to consider earlier drivers (such as 2xx) for Windows XP.

This is a great build! I think you could add a cheap SSD, perhaps increase the RAM a bit too and you'd gain a lot in terms of loading times.

cde wrote on 2021-05-13, 11:18:

This is a great build! I think you could add a cheap SSD, perhaps increase the RAM a bit too and you'd gain a lot in terms of loading times.

I have no need for an SSD, as this is not my primary computer, I'm fine with a 7200RPM HDD.
A 32-bit OS without PAE can only address up to 4GB of total memory, some of that is mapped to devices, so the OS can't actually use the full 4GB of RAM.

Nice build!

Personally, my opinion is that overkill makes a lot of sense for a Windows XP gaming computer. The problem with the XP era is that it spans such a long period of time. XP came out in 2001, and many people stuck with it until or even beyond 2009 (Win7). So what is a period-correct XP build? It could be a Pentium III, or a Core 2 Duo. And the early and late XP era games are totally different in terms of hardware requirements. So unless you have particular nostalgia for a slim portion of the XP era (understandable! maybe your first PC was an early XP era computer!) you might as well just go overkill... as long as you get the compatibility you need. Why suffer through 5fps in F.E.A.R. if you can get 85fps with everything maxed out?

I am equally annoyed by WinXP builds on Pentium3/Pentium4(pre-s775), and i5 and above builds. Core2Duo or Athlon64 X2 seems to be the only correct specs for WinXP to me.

bZbZbZ wrote on 2021-05-13, 19:36:

Nice build!

Personally, my opinion is that overkill makes a lot of sense for a Windows XP gaming computer. The problem with the XP era is that it spans such a long period of time. XP came out in 2001, and many people stuck with it until or even beyond 2009 (Win7). So what is a period-correct XP build? It could be a Pentium III, or a Core 2 Duo. And the early and late XP era games are totally different in terms of hardware requirements. So unless you have particular nostalgia for a slim portion of the XP era (understandable! maybe your first PC was an early XP era computer!) you might as well just go overkill... as long as you get the compatibility you need. Why suffer through 5fps in F.E.A.R. if you can get 85fps with everything maxed out?

Yes, exactly. I don't know why people come to these threads to tell the OP they built the wrong computer. It's dumb and annoying.

EDIT: Fun story. In 2008 I built my first computer with what was period correct hardware for the day. E8400, HD 4850, 4 gigs of RAM. Installed windows XP. I love that computer. I rebuilt it from the exact some parts recently. I used that exact computer to play through Crysis on high at 1024x768 hovering between 25-40 fps. Good memories.

Even though I own the same computer now, and I did spend a while playing games on it for the nostalgia, I would never play crysis on that machine again. I don't have to. I have better computers for that now.

bZbZbZ wrote on 2021-05-13, 19:36:

Nice build!

Personally, my opinion is that overkill makes a lot of sense for a Windows XP gaming computer. The problem with the XP era is that it spans such a long period of time. XP came out in 2001, and many people stuck with it until or even beyond 2009 (Win7). So what is a period-correct XP build? It could be a Pentium III, or a Core 2 Duo. And the early and late XP era games are totally different in terms of hardware requirements. So unless you have particular nostalgia for a slim portion of the XP era (understandable! maybe your first PC was an early XP era computer!) you might as well just go overkill... as long as you get the compatibility you need. Why suffer through 5fps in F.E.A.R. if you can get 85fps with everything maxed out?

The XP era covers two whole console generations, the 6th (PS2/Gamecube/Xbox) and 7th (Xbox 360/PS3) generations. Even after Vista and 7 were released most games still only required DX9 at most and were 32-bit, though a few games had optional 64-bit patches and/or DX10/DX11 renderers. It wasn't until the release of the PS4 and Xbox One in November of 2013 that most AAA games started requiring DX11 and were 64-bit. The last AAA 32-bit DX9 game that I know of is Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen which was released on Steam in January 2016. Pretty much any game that will run on the Xbox 360 and/or PS3 will run in Windows XP, except for a few outliers like Just Cause 2 (2010; DX10), Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag (2013; DX11), and Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor (2014; DX11/64-bit). PC versions of any PS4/5 or Xbox One/Series X/S game will run in Vista/7/8/8.1, unless they require DX12.