What resolution are you targeting? For gaming at 1600x1200 and its widescreen counterpart of 1920x1200 I suggest a slightly stronger GPU. Something like a GTX 960 or possibly a 970. With those cards, you can also crank up AA and AF if you like.

For sound, get an X-Fi card. Make sure that it's a good one, and not a cut down model like Xtreme Audio.

Sounds like overkill for XP but could be a fun project 😀
fwiw: Nvidia 368.81 is last XP driver and supports GT 420 up to GTX 960. Any other NV card you would have to mod the .inf....

Horun wrote on 2025-01-08, 19:11:

fwiw: Nvidia 368.81 is last XP driver and supports GT 420 up to GTX 960. Any other NV card you would have to mod the .inf....

There is a slightly older driver version which officially supports GTX 970 and 980 cards under WinXP.

But yeah, for the 980 Ti and the Titan X, you will need newer, modded drivers.

My opinion is that more than 2 cores are wasted with XP. So not something I'd think good for an FX-8350... The boards tend to hit power limits for overclock on those. So I would propose using an FX-4xxx or 6xxx and clocking it to the moon. Unless you're gonna dual boot with Vista 64 or Win7 64. Personally, out of my range of hardware on hand, I'd probably do C2 8400 on an 865 board that can't take more than 4GB, Xp 32bit, and Radeon 5850 maybe... due to I've got radeons coming out of my ears and few higher end nVid. Had I not got an i7 come in for my 1gen Core i series board, and still had the i3, I might have been picking that for it. Might dual boot with it just because you can. Might also consider XP for an Athlon II 260, but not sure it will get a seat when the music stops, I have been having a procession of better AM3 come in which are knocking everything down a peg in the pecking order each time.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2025-01-08, 18:01:

What is everyone's thoughts on a FX-8350 rig?

It was disappointing back in the day and aged like fine milk. Especially not a good fit for XP. You'd do better with an Ivy Bridge i3.

You can get lots of platforms to boot XP either in legacy mode (if the motherboard still supports it) or by slip streaming AHCI drivers. At least Ryzen 3/AM4 and 900o series intel CPUs if not later.

It's plenty fast enough for XP. You could go faster if you wanted.

It might be fun to play around on a test bench with. Not sure such a build is worthy of taking up a PC case unless you have plenty spare.

I don't have any experience with the CPU, but I agree with BitWrangler that XP, and XP games won't use that many cores. I have a 750 Ti in my current XP build. It is possible to get it 100% utilised if you crank the settings and it becomes the bottleneck. But if you are using reasonable settings It plays most games very well.

I'd avoid XP 64-bit. Too many compatibility issues. Vista's new driver architecture required rewrites and also forced 64-bit support. Before then 64-bit only really made sense for servers or other specialized tasks with carefully planned out hardware, and a specific need for all that RAM.

I have a 750ti in my XP build and am very happy with it. The base 750 should also do well. It is possible to get more powerful cards working, but most games don't need the extra power.

You can give the FX a try, but it was seen as a dog when it came out, and it hasn't gotten any better. As said pretty much nothing will use that number of cores. A Core2 or Sandy/Ivybridge i series processor is still extremely easy to get for almost nothing and a major step up. If you already have the hardware, give it a try. You'll quickly see why that processor has its reputation.

Just remember that XP 32-bit can't address more then 4GB of RAM, but IO for other devices also eats out of that space. I had an SLI XP rig, and was able to use 1.8GB of my 4GB back then. Of course no games used anywhere near that amount of memory.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-01-08, 18:12:

What resolution are you targeting? For gaming at 1600x1200 and its widescreen counterpart of 1920x1200 I suggest a slightly stronger GPU. Something like a GTX 960 or possibly a 970. With those cards, you can also crank up AA and AF if you like.

For sound, get an X-Fi card. Make sure that it's a good one, and not a cut down model like Xtreme Audio.

Yes planning on the X-FI, I think that I have one somewhere but not sure where.
I figured on likely upgrading the GPU down the road, if I ever use the thing anyways. Just have the 750 on hand so figure it's a start.

BitWrangler wrote on 2025-01-08, 19:47:

My opinion is that more than 2 cores are wasted with XP. So not something I'd think good for an FX-8350... The boards tend to hit power limits for overclock on those. So I would propose using an FX-4xxx or 6xxx and clocking it to the moon. Unless you're gonna dual boot with Vista 64 or Win7 64. Personally, out of my range of hardware on hand, I'd probably do C2 8400 on an 865 board that can't take more than 4GB, Xp 32bit, and Radeon 5850 maybe... due to I've got radeons coming out of my ears and few higher end nVid. Had I not got an i7 come in for my 1gen Core i series board, and still had the i3, I might have been picking that for it. Might dual boot with it just because you can. Might also consider XP for an Athlon II 260, but not sure it will get a seat when the music stops, I have been having a procession of better AM3 come in which are knocking everything down a peg in the pecking order each time.

All good points.
Mostly here I'm trying to find a fit for the hardware first, the software is simply exists as an excuse to do something with it.
But I just can't really justify a dedicated Windows 7 PC, or even Vista for that matter......

Probably not really worth my time. I do still have a Phenom II X6 based machine somewhere and honestly that probably makes more sense.
I just have a soft spot for the FX refresh chips for whatever reason.

SScorpio wrote on 2025-01-08, 22:05:

I'd avoid XP 64-bit. Too many compatibility issues.

Used for years and never had almost any compatibility issues. I still use XP x64 in my laptop rock solid, no problems at all at software level and exept some very old hardware with drivers neither

RandomStranger wrote on 2025-01-08, 20:15:

Jasin Natael wrote on 2025-01-08, 18:01:

What is everyone's thoughts on a FX-8350 rig?

It was disappointing back in the day and aged like fine milk. Especially not a good fit for XP. You'd do better with an Ivy Bridge i3.

Dare to disagree.
The refresh chips really weren't bad for the price and FAR less boring than some dual core Snory bridge.
It's far more fun to OC one of the FXs and play with it than some Optiplex.

But that's just me.

theelf wrote on 2025-01-08, 22:41:

SScorpio wrote on 2025-01-08, 22:05:

I'd avoid XP 64-bit. Too many compatibility issues.

Used for years and never had almost any compatibility issues. I still use XP x64 in my laptop rock solid, no problems at all at software level and exept some very old hardware with drivers neither

People say this all the time.
I'm not entirely sure that it's really the case.
Granted I've not spent THAT much time with it, but the time I have spent I've not had such driver hell issues that seem to perpetuate.

SScorpio wrote on 2025-01-08, 22:05:

I'd avoid XP 64-bit. Too many compatibility issues. Vista's new driver architecture required rewrites and also forced 64-bit sup […]
Show full quote

I'd avoid XP 64-bit. Too many compatibility issues. Vista's new driver architecture required rewrites and also forced 64-bit support. Before then 64-bit only really made sense for servers or other specialized tasks with carefully planned out hardware, and a specific need for all that RAM.

I have a 750ti in my XP build and am very happy with it. The base 750 should also do well. It is possible to get more powerful cards working, but most games don't need the extra power.

You can give the FX a try, but it was seen as a dog when it came out, and it hasn't gotten any better. As said pretty much nothing will use that number of cores. A Core2 or Sandy/Ivybridge i series processor is still extremely easy to get for almost nothing and a major step up. If you already have the hardware, give it a try. You'll quickly see why that processor has its reputation.

Just remember that XP 32-bit can't address more then 4GB of RAM, but IO for other devices also eats out of that space. I had an SLI XP rig, and was able to use 1.8GB of my 4GB back then. Of course no games used anywhere near that amount of memory.

I've a fair bit of experience with the six and eight core FX chips so there are no real surprises there for me.
I find that the refresh chips were really not as bad as some made them out to be.
Sure they used a lot more power than Intel chips, but who cares? Power is quite cheap where I live, and as far as performance goes I can't imagine I'd care about 160 vs 180 fps in game "x".
They were generally far cheaper to buy and overclocked well and were fun to tweak.
They weren't bad chips, just badly priced at launch with some questionable architecture quirks.
And as far as Windows 7/8/10 goes, I'd argue that at the 6/8 core models hold up better than the i3/i5 Sandy/Ivy chips.

FX line was holding up only due to aggressive pricing. It scales better in Linux with Vulkan, but that kinda defeats the purpose.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2025-01-08, 22:48:

I've a fair bit of experience with the six and eight core FX chips so there are no real surprises there for me. I find that the […]
Show full quote

I've a fair bit of experience with the six and eight core FX chips so there are no real surprises there for me.
I find that the refresh chips were really not as bad as some made them out to be.
Sure they used a lot more power than Intel chips, but who cares? Power is quite cheap where I live, and as far as performance goes I can't imagine I'd care about 160 vs 180 fps in game "x".
They were generally far cheaper to buy and overclocked well and were fun to tweak.
They weren't bad chips, just badly priced at launch with some questionable architecture quirks.
And as far as Windows 7/8/10 goes, I'd argue that at the 6/8 core models hold up better than the i3/i5 Sandy/Ivy chips.

In newer OSes and with things that can use more cores, yes they will run better than a dual or quad core without hyperthreading CPU. But that doesn't effect XP.

Compared to a stock clocked 2600, the FX edges out with massively parallel video encoding, and memory intensive situations with the faster RAM it was paired with. But sadly that site doesn't have the graphs for giving a 2600K that extra 1GHz that they can all hit, and some can go higher.
https://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/366/AMD_FX- … i7_i7-2600.html

In newer games with both overclocked, the 2600K gets roughly 15-25% more FPS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM89KR0beQ

Jasin Natael wrote on 2025-01-08, 22:42:

Dare to disagree. The refresh chips really weren't bad for the price and FAR less boring than some dual core Snory bridge. It' […]
Show full quote

RandomStranger wrote on 2025-01-08, 20:15:

Jasin Natael wrote on 2025-01-08, 18:01:

What is everyone's thoughts on a FX-8350 rig?

It was disappointing back in the day and aged like fine milk. Especially not a good fit for XP. You'd do better with an Ivy Bridge i3.

Dare to disagree.
The refresh chips really weren't bad for the price and FAR less boring than some dual core Snory bridge.
It's far more fun to OC one of the FXs and play with it than some Optiplex.

But that's just me.

Yes, as TheSerpentRider said. It was generally priced the same or below as the slowest i5 (the 8320 was sold for the same price as an i3) and barely kept up, often got beaten by the i3s. There were some specific workloads where they were faster, but not something that was common for home users. Back then many believed that with 8 threads they will be at least more future proof. But they weren't. Once the industry moved over to reliably using more than 4 threads, it needed more than 4 fast threads. Something the FX didn't have.

Back then I stuck to my Phenom II X6 until the 2nd gen Ryzen came out. For a daily driver you want something that works.

RandomStranger wrote on 2025-01-09, 05:06:

Once the industry moved over to reliably using more than 4 threads, it needed more than 4 fast threads. Something the FX didn't have.

I saw it as more of a whole weird multiphase thing, all of a sudden when true multicore support arrived, Core2 Quads and early i7 up to 2600, just kinda bounced back as viable gaming systems, Phenom IIs got benefit too, then that lasted one or two years into Ryzen when AMD had dumped FX and strangely, stuff was starting to favor FX arch for a bit, they seemed to move up in comparison again, started gaining new fans in 2019 and then semi shortage in 2020 helped a bit. Anyway, all kinda past what XP can run, even too late for Win7 I think. Not that we haven't seen that kind of yoyo before, like pentium is barely faster than 486dx4, oh wait, it's a lot faster now, but that new MMX is a waste of money... only now it isn't etc etc.

theelf wrote on 2025-01-08, 22:41:

SScorpio wrote on 2025-01-08, 22:05:

I'd avoid XP 64-bit. Too many compatibility issues.

Used for years and never had almost any compatibility issues. I still use XP x64 in my laptop rock solid, no problems at all at software level and exept some very old hardware with drivers neither

Wasn't it established on this very forum that EAX didn't work with XP x64?

That's usually the reason most people set up an XP machine (like the OP).