VOGONS


First post, by AlRayes_BRN

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hello everybody,

First of all, I would like to thank everyone in this forum for their great tips and contributions to help others. I've been visiting this site alot to read about various stuff and decided to sign up today.

I currently have this Windows XP build to play old games:

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
Motherboard: DFI LanParty UT nF4 SLI-DR
RAM: 4x 1GB Kingston DDR 400 Mhz
GPU: GTX 750 Ti (waiting for a GTX 285 to arrive since I had issues running few games with a 750 ti)
Soundcard: SoundBlaster Audigy 2 Zs
HDD: WD Blue 1TB 7200 RPM
OS: Windows XP 32-bit SP3

Been considering upgrading to an AMD FX-60 which uses the same socket or jump to one of these:

- 2008 Intel i7 965 Extreme
- 2009 Intel i7 975 Extreme
- 2010 Intel i7 980x Extreme

Though I dont know how well 4 and 6 cores CPUs perform with 1999 - 2010 era games (issues, artifacts, etc...)

Any tips about this or better hardware to go with?

Many thanks!

Last edited by AlRayes_BRN on 2020-01-09, 05:50. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 2 of 9, by hwh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

My personal experience is it doesn't matter how many "cores" there are if there's more than 1. Most software will ignore it, which makes single processor performance more significant. Obviously you know some software throws a fit, which is sometimes resolved by setting affinity, other times more drastic measures are needed.

But I've never heard of software that doesn't mind 2 processors but freaks out about 4. I would pay close attention to single core performance, and also consider what you're running to determine what the best choice is.

Graphics, I personally selected a GTX 460 price/performance in 2010. Compatibility is not perfect, notably the NTVDM colors and fonts are messed up, but it's become the norm to use DOSbox for it anyway, and the remaining issues I know of (like Splinter Cell) only seem to work on a much older card like my Radeon 9700 PRO. Don't even get me started on Anachronox.

I checked and the 285 is a lot slower and somehow uses more power than the card I have:
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare/Ge … TX-460/1444vs31

Does depend on what you're doing, but that card will struggle with some higher settings on stuff closer to 2010 than 1999. I know because my card has limits. I can pretty much run what I like, but there's not a lot of headroom; the newer games I have played like Gothic 3 (2006) will bring you to a halt, even custom graphics settings on MAFIA (2002) are enough to saturate my card and get it around 20FPS. I guess you could swap cards if you need to.

Reply 4 of 9, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Been considering upgrading to an AMD FX-60 which uses the same socket or jump to one of these:

Pointless.

- 2008 Intel i7 965 Extreme
- 2009 Intel i7 975 Extreme
- 2010 Intel i7 980x Extreme

Core i7 has shared L2 cache so 980X is better (more cache). But you can skip this stuff completely and go for Core i7 2500K/2600K.

AMD post Athlon64 were horrible until Ryzen.

Phenom II is quite nice.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 5 of 9, by candle_86

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
hwh wrote on 2020-01-11, 01:21:
My personal experience is it doesn't matter how many "cores" there are if there's more than 1. Most software will ignore it, whi […]
Show full quote

My personal experience is it doesn't matter how many "cores" there are if there's more than 1. Most software will ignore it, which makes single processor performance more significant. Obviously you know some software throws a fit, which is sometimes resolved by setting affinity, other times more drastic measures are needed.

But I've never heard of software that doesn't mind 2 processors but freaks out about 4. I would pay close attention to single core performance, and also consider what you're running to determine what the best choice is.

Graphics, I personally selected a GTX 460 price/performance in 2010. Compatibility is not perfect, notably the NTVDM colors and fonts are messed up, but it's become the norm to use DOSbox for it anyway, and the remaining issues I know of (like Splinter Cell) only seem to work on a much older card like my Radeon 9700 PRO. Don't even get me started on Anachronox.

I checked and the 285 is a lot slower and somehow uses more power than the card I have:
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare/Ge … TX-460/1444vs31

Does depend on what you're doing, but that card will struggle with some higher settings on stuff closer to 2010 than 1999. I know because my card has limits. I can pretty much run what I like, but there's not a lot of headroom; the newer games I have played like Gothic 3 (2006) will bring you to a halt, even custom graphics settings on MAFIA (2002) are enough to saturate my card and get it around 20FPS. I guess you could swap cards if you need to.

Hwcompare is a poor resource the GTX 460 is slower than a 285, a 460 sits just below a 275 in performance. Anything that won't run on newer than XP a 285 can Max out handily,it was able to run oblivion at 2560x1600 at ultra as well as crysis at 1080p dx10 ultra and maintain above 45fps.

Phenom II X4 840T @ 4ghz - ASUS M3N72D-SLI - GTX 560 Ti- 4GB DDR2 1066 - 1TB HDD - Windows XP
Pentium 4 3.4C - MSI 865PE NEO2 - x850 XT PE - 2GB DDR 400 - 500GB HDD - Windows XP
Duron 1600 - ASUS A7N8X - 512MB DDR 266 - Radeon 8500 LE

Reply 6 of 9, by hwh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 15:21:

Hwcompare is a poor resource the GTX 460 is slower than a 285, a 460 sits just below a 275 in performance. Anything that won't run on newer than XP a 285 can Max out handily,it was able to run oblivion at 2560x1600 at ultra as well as crysis at 1080p dx10 ultra and maintain above 45fps.

Why? What should you use?

Reply 7 of 9, by foil_fresh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
hwh wrote on 2020-01-14, 04:15:
candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 15:21:

Hwcompare is a poor resource the GTX 460 is slower than a 285, a 460 sits just below a 275 in performance. Anything that won't run on newer than XP a 285 can Max out handily,it was able to run oblivion at 2560x1600 at ultra as well as crysis at 1080p dx10 ultra and maintain above 45fps.

Why? What should you use?

the cards are neck and neck in terms of performance on paper but i'm sure the 460 has benefits like size and power consumption (maybe some other effiency boosts too). they both have the same amount of ram, roughly same clock speeds. the 285 has a bigger mem bus but the 460 has gddr5 and the 285 has gddr3 so that balances out.

Pentium MMX 166MHz / Shuttle HOT591-p / S3 Trio3d2x / SB 16
Pentium II 266MHz / Lucky-Star 6ABX2V / Riva128 / AWE64 / AW744L
Pentium III 950 MHz / SY-7VBA / Voodoo 3000 / Aureal Vortex 2
Pentium IV 3.4GHz/ GA-8S655FX / Geforce 6800 GT / Audigy

Reply 8 of 9, by Koltoroc

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
hwh wrote on 2020-01-14, 04:15:
candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 15:21:

Hwcompare is a poor resource the GTX 460 is slower than a 285, a 460 sits just below a 275 in performance. Anything that won't run on newer than XP a 285 can Max out handily,it was able to run oblivion at 2560x1600 at ultra as well as crysis at 1080p dx10 ultra and maintain above 45fps.

Why? What should you use?

Old reviews. The hardware comparison websites are all useless at best.

here is an old anandtech review of the GTX 460 that includes the GTX 285 in the comparisons that aren't DX11.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-g … 60-the-200-king

the 460 and 285 are in spitting distance of each other in most cases with a few outliers like mass effect 2 where the 285 trounces the 460.

The problem with the hardware comparison websites is that they largely just use values like clockspeed core configuration, shader count and stuff like that, that outside of the context of the specific architecture is useless. The result is a ranking that is rather random and any ranks that correspond to reality accurately are coincidental at best.

Reply 9 of 9, by Tertz

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

For Windows XP support build I'd chosen Intel i7 2xxx with PCI motherboard. As this besides good compatibility also covers later games of 2010-... years (until PS5 generation).

Videocards with good XP games compatibility should be until GTX 5xx .
Taking DX11 games, you may prefer 9xx as the last with official XP drivers. There should be drivers for 10xx but those are unofficial and you'll be more limited to what driver's version to use in case of compatibility issues. Also for 10xx you'll need additional device as HDMI->VGA convertor for CRT support (this support can be useful for early XP games) what hypothetically may rise delays and add other problems. With lower prices than today, 10xx as the hardware for additional retro PC may become more interesting.

Koltoroc wrote on 2020-01-14, 13:46:
The hardware comparison websites are all useless at best. here is an old anandtech review of the GTX 460 that includes the GTX 2 […]
Show full quote

The hardware comparison websites are all useless at best.
here is an old anandtech review of the GTX 460 that includes the GTX 285 in the comparisons that aren't DX11.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-g … 60-the-200-king
the 460 and 285 are in spitting distance of each other in most cases with a few outliers like mass effect 2 where the 285 trounces the 460.

Techpowerup ranking shows GTX 460 256 bit similar to GTX 275-285 cards.

DOSBox CPU Benchmark
Yamaha YMF7x4 Guide