Go with 32-bit (and 2x2GB RAM).
You can't run 16-bit on 64-bit OS (ie. it's not possible for Windows).
ANY 64-bit capable game, will work fine on Windows 7 x64.

64-bit XP was actually Windows Server 2003 with the XP stuff ported over. Avoid it. It's hard to find drivers for it and there are several other compatibility issues.

agent_x007 wrote:

Go with 32-bit (and 2x2GB RAM).
You can't run 16-bit on 64-bit OS (ie. it's not possible for Windows).
ANY 64-bit capable game, will work fine on Windows 7 x64.

Thank you. Are there any 16bit Windows Xp era games that wouldn't be fine instead on a dual 1.4ghz Pentium III rig with a GeForce 6800 Ultra?

As mentioned this Xp machine will only be for games that the 98/2k machine can't provide an optimal experience with, yet also don't run or not well on a modern Windows 10 machine.

I don't think there is a single XP era game that can benefit from XP 64-bit. Some will suffer, though.

There are no 16-bit XP Era games, although some 32-bit Windows games, perhaps even in XP era, used 16-bit installers.

dr_st wrote:

I don't think there is a single XP era game that can benefit from XP 64-bit. Some will suffer, though.

There are no 16-bit XP Era games, although some 32-bit Windows games, perhaps even in XP era, used 16-bit installers.

ah! good catch, I hadn't even thought of that. Ok I already have 2 x 2gb RAM so that makes things easier.

Was SLI even doable with 32-bit Windows Xp?

Yes, but SLI is a bad choice anyways. A single more powerful GPU is always better.

^^ unless you just feel like messing with it for fun. Sometimes pretending you live a decade ago and are made of money is it's own reward.

dr_st wrote:

Yes, but SLI is a bad choice anyways. A single more powerful GPU is always better.

xjas wrote:

^^ unless you just feel like messing with it for fun. Sometimes pretending you live a decade ago and are made of money is it's own reward.

Thank you for confirming that it will still work under 32-bit Xp 😀

xjas - not made of money, just well into adulthood and still not married. It doesn't bother me at all that in my main rig the 2nd graphics card generally does nothing... I combined dr_st's advice and bought the best single GPU (in this case a Titan RTX), and since there still isn't a single more powerful GPU... it got a friend to keep it company 😈

There's a special 64-bit FarCry and 64-bit UT2004 for it at least.

64-bit ut04 just dumbs down the audio subsystem and runs a d3d9 renderer with visual features missing. it's faster, but one can have that plus correct visuals using d3d8to9 on the 32-bit exe.

kalm_traveler wrote:

xjas - not made of money, just well into adulthood and still not married. It doesn't bother me at all that in my main rig the 2nd graphics card generally does nothing... I combined dr_st's advice and bought the best single GPU (in this case a Titan RTX), and since there still isn't a single more powerful GPU... it got a friend to keep it company 😈

Bit confused, so you have 2 Titan's that you want to run in SLI?
XP will support the 2 cards, just not SLI, that said even a singe Titan will be one of a hell of a card for XP.

If you do want to run SLI just for the sake of it though (I am after all!) as per Nivida you need something earlier then below.

The following SLI features are not supported on Windows XP:
• Geforce GTX 680, 670 SLI
• Quad SLI technology using GeForce GTX 590, GeForce 9800 GX2 or GeForce GTX 295
• 3-way SLI technology
• Hybrid SLI
• SLI multi-monitor support

https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detai … t-in-windows-xp

chinny22 wrote:

Bit confused, so you have 2 Titan's that you want to run in SLI? XP will support the 2 cards, just not SLI, that said even a sin […]
Show full quote

kalm_traveler wrote:

xjas - not made of money, just well into adulthood and still not married. It doesn't bother me at all that in my main rig the 2nd graphics card generally does nothing... I combined dr_st's advice and bought the best single GPU (in this case a Titan RTX), and since there still isn't a single more powerful GPU... it got a friend to keep it company 😈

Bit confused, so you have 2 Titan's that you want to run in SLI?
XP will support the 2 cards, just not SLI, that said even a singe Titan will be one of a hell of a card for XP.

If you do want to run SLI just for the sake of it though (I am after all!) as per Nivida you need something earlier then below.

The following SLI features are not supported on Windows XP:
• Geforce GTX 680, 670 SLI
• Quad SLI technology using GeForce GTX 590, GeForce 9800 GX2 or GeForce GTX 295
• 3-way SLI technology
• Hybrid SLI
• SLI multi-monitor support

https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detai … t-in-windows-xp

No no, as I quoted

xjas wrote:

Sometimes pretending you live a decade ago and are made of money is it's own reward.

referring to having two 8800 GTX cards in SLI for this Xp rig. I already do SLI in my main modern rig so I am very aware of it not being useful for many games and would imagine this to also be the case with an old Windows Xp setup.

Since this rig will be exclusively for 2002-2006 games (the period where Windows Xp was the current Windows OS - Vista seems to have launched in November 2006 so I can use any parts that existed through that month, which the 8800 GTX fits), I figured it might be fun to make it a 2-way SLI 8800 GTX rig, sort of an oldschool version of my current modern main rig.

Ohh the 8800's, I say do it!

For a while I had Quad SLI with a pair of GeForce 7950 GT2's (last duel GPU card to support SLI in XP) on my Asus P5N-D. Performance wise it was holding the machine back, but personal satisfaction 10 times better then a single card setup.

I'd avoid the DX10+-gen cards for anything XP. There's quite a few feature regressions (regarding handling of 16-bit color dithering and depth precision)

leileilol wrote:

I'd avoid the DX10+-gen cards for anything XP. There's quite a few feature regressions (regarding handling of 16-bit color dithering and depth precision)

So you're saying buy even older cards? That would seem counterproductive given the purpose, don't you think?

Looking at hardware available by the month that Vista launched, the 8800 GTX appears to be the most powerful Nvidia card (I would never have bought AMD back then and can't bring myself to do it now... 2006 me would never have it)

Well, no one ever confirmed that the purpose makes sense in the first place, does it? 😜

There were no games supporting DirectX 10 in 2006. If you look at the somewhat partial list here, you'll see that the few games with 2006 release dates mention that DX10 support was added via patches in 2007/2008. XP itself does not support DX10.

If your goal is as you stated - build the machine with the most powerful hardware that was available before Vista launch (BTW, what for? As a museum piece?), then yes, getting some nVidia 8-series GPU makes sense. Maybe you should also change that X6800 to QX6700, which was released a few days before Vista RTM? 😉

If your goal is to play exclusively 2002-2006 games on this machine (again, a strange goal, but whatever), well - they can't benefit from DX10, but if what leileilol said is true, then they may actually look a bit worse with a DX10 card doing DX9 than a DX9-only card, like GeForce 7 series. Maybe you want a 7950 GX2 SLI? 🤣

As you already own the 8800's I'd give it a try first though. My the 7950 SLI struggled at GTA3, VC, SA (I forget which one exactly) with everything turned up to highest settings possible, where as swapping it out for a GTX590 plays fine (but not as cool as cant do SLI)
As they are the only games I own from the mid 2000's I'm not sure how many games suffer from leileilol's post.

dr_st wrote:

Well, no one ever confirmed that the purpose makes sense in the first place, does it? :P […]
Show full quote

Well, no one ever confirmed that the purpose makes sense in the first place, does it? 😜

There were no games supporting DirectX 10 in 2006. If you look at the somewhat partial list here, you'll see that the few games with 2006 release dates mention that DX10 support was added via patches in 2007/2008. XP itself does not support DX10.

If your goal is as you stated - build the machine with the most powerful hardware that was available before Vista launch (BTW, what for? As a museum piece?), then yes, getting some nVidia 8-series GPU makes sense. Maybe you should also change that X6800 to QX6700, which was released a few days before Vista RTM? 😉

If your goal is to play exclusively 2002-2006 games on this machine (again, a strange goal, but whatever), well - they can't benefit from DX10, but if what leileilol said is true, then they may actually look a bit worse with a DX10 card doing DX9 than a DX9-only card, like GeForce 7 series. Maybe you want a 7950 GX2 SLI? 🤣

I mean... we're on a forum of retro computing enthusiasts... we don't make sense in the first place 😜

The thought is that since I already have modern machines that can run anything under the sun (as long as it can natively execute in Windows 10), there is a gap between my dual Pentium III 98SE/2k machine and modern machines as far as what can run with max settings etc for an optimal experience.

Given that, I figured that putting together an Xp-specific build limited to hardware that was around while it was the current version of Windows would cover that gap. Perhaps I'm mistaken and there are still 16-bit-only mainstream games for Windows Vista 32-bit and Windows 7 32-bit?

I see the Core2 Quad QX6700 released mid November 2006, but it is slower than the x6800 (2.66ghz vs 2.93ghz) and I definitely remember zero games back in those days benefitting when I upgraded my rig from a Pentium 4 to a Core 2 Duo.

Anyway, I don't really see wanting to play these games optimally as a strange goal but you're welcome to your opinion and thank you for the helpful information.

I think whats confusing some (if thats the right word) is the 2 goals in 1.
People that are building period correct machines aren't worried about playing games of the era optimally, If anything the PC will be closer to optimal for games a few years older.
Likewise people who are building PC's to run certain games optimally don't limit themselves to any era hardware and simply get whatever works best.

No one is saying its a bad idea, just keeping your expectations in check as your leaning more into period correct then the optimal gaming camp.

Doesn't really matter anyway. You like SLI so your motherboard choice is a good one even if not going for period correct in the future.
Motherboard decides what Ram you need. 4GB is overkill but why wouldn't you? that's not going to change if you decide to drop period correct.
Motherboard also defines the CPU and your X6800 is better suited then my X3320 for a gaming rig and I haven't had any problems yet.

The rest like graphics, sound, HDD can be swapped in and out depending what mood your in anyway. It' s why I say go with what you already own first then see if you need to upgrade.