I'll vote for the fastest dual core you can get. Some games of that era don't like quad core setups.

If you're sticking with LGA 775, then go for an E series dual core.

If you want the fastest XP PC for 2007/2008, then switching to LGA 1155 and getting a 2nd or 3rd gen i-Series can give a large CPU uplift versus a Core 2.

There's no correct answer in 2 vs 4 cores. A small number of games will in the later part of your time range will use a quad core. But some games have issues and you need to disable what cores are available for some games to work. But if the you do upgrade to the i-Series you want an i5, or you want to disable hyperthreading as it gives no benefit in XP.

SScorpio wrote on 2025-03-20, 13:16:

If you want the fastest XP PC for 2007/2008...

Not the "fastest" to play games from that period. Because, I BELIEVE, that games from that period should run no problems even on a Windows 7 machine (wich I alredy have planned).
That's why I'm sticking with LGA 775. It's also close to my dream PC of the period that could never afford.

My vote is for a fast Core 2 Duo. I currently run an E8500 in my XP system. I actually run it in single-core mode with the 'numproc=1' boot.ini edit simply because I'm too lazy to figure out which games need CPU affinity set. Even with only a single core it still runs significantly faster/cooler than a Pentium 4 HT.

TheMLGladiator wrote on 2025-03-20, 15:11:

My vote is for a fast Core 2 Duo. I currently run an E8500 in my XP system. I actually run it in single-core mode with the 'numproc=1' boot.ini edit simply because I'm too lazy to figure out which games need CPU affinity set. Even with only a single core it still runs significantly faster/cooler than a Pentium 4 HT.

This is the way

Ehhh, the QX9x50 CPUs should clock just about as high as a dual core provided you have a good board, power supply and good cooling.

If you have decent cooling, a decent Q6600 should have no issues going to 3.2Ghz on stock voltage and barely any extra voltage for 3.6Ghz.

Back when a Q6600 was my main CPU, I had it over clocked to 3.84Ghz (480x7.5) on a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P with DDR2-1066.

The RAM was at 1:1, so at 480/960.

LGA775 really starts to be nice once you get around 450 fsb.

High FSB with 1:1 ratio for the RAM is best. If the RAM is not running a 1:1 ratio, then you are losing a ton of performance.

Note : You can have multiple straps get to the same FSB/MEM speeds (I think 266 and 400 straps are the same for 1:1 RAM with 1600FSB/800 DRAM).

Depending on your board, you might be able to mod a 771 Xeon into it, usually for cheaper than the equivalent on Core 2. I've seen premodded CPUs with notches cut out and the tape applied to the pads before, and I myself own an E5450 with such a mod. L and E series here is usually more power efficient, produces less heat.

It's also kind of trivial to mod a Q6600 (probably works on Q6700 as well) to run at 3+ ghz with an appropriate board (that supports 1333 Mhz FSB) with a bit of tape over 2 pins and some appropriate RAM. Might suggest you get yourself a 775 board with DDR3, if only because it's easier and cheaper to find slow old DDR3 than fast DDR2.

Bear in mind Core 2, in the context of gaming on XP, is still really quite fast (both single and multicore) even without an overclock.

It is easier to mod the CPU socket than the CPU when doing a 771-775 mod. Just use an exact knife and cut the nubs off instead of filing the board on the CPU.

The stickers to swap the pads on the CPU around work great.

For locked CPUs, it is better to get a lower FSB one with a higher multiplier though it doesn't matter as much if you are pushing the fsb to the stratosphere, which is actually not hard to do on a good board.

I used to be into overclocking on the LGA775 platform. In my opinion, for this purpose ASUS It is better to use mobo (preferably X38/48 DDR3) and E8500 (E8600 is too expensive in most cases, but E8500 is not. Also, even if you have a limited budget, it is better to avoid Q8xxx/E7xxx, because the TIM of these is grease. There have been cases of Lynnfield not being able to withstand the rated clock due to TIM deterioration, so these will also have the same fate).

I've overclocked more than 10 E8500s on 4 different motherboards (P5B, P5B deluxe, P5E3 Deluxe, GA-EP45-DQ6), and all of them ran at 4.5GHz (474*9.5)@1.55V. I remember the single-threaded score on CBR15 was around 120cb, which beats Sandy Bridge. It's probably good enough.

From experience, DDR2 mobos tend to struggle to stabilize above 480-490MHz FSB. DDR3 is easily achievable with a cheap stick lying around. It's worth spending a little more to get DDR3.

cyclone3d wrote on 2025-03-20, 16:51:

Ehhh, the QX9x50 CPUs should clock just about as high as a dual core provided you have a good board, power supply and good cooling.

If you have decent cooling, a decent Q6600 should have no issues going to 3.2Ghz on stock voltage and barely any extra voltage for 3.6Ghz.

Back when a Q6600 was my main CPU, I had it over clocked to 3.84Ghz (480x7.5) on a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P with DDR2-1066.

Just look at the thread about the PC. I have both a decent MOBO and decent air cooling. The PSU is in doubt, but I'll soon replace it with my 750W sharkoon when I pull it out of my retiring main rig.

cyclone3d wrote on 2025-03-20, 16:51:

The RAM was at 1:1, so at 480/960.

LGA775 really starts to be nice once you get around 450 fsb.

High FSB with 1:1 ratio for the RAM is best. If the RAM is not running a 1:1 ratio, then you are losing a ton of performance.

agent_x007 wrote on 2025-03-20, 20:39:

Note : You can have multiple straps get to the same FSB/MEM speeds (I think 266 and 400 straps are the same for 1:1 RAM with 1600FSB/800 DRAM).

And here's another big doubt about 775 platforms: I'm currently running 333mhz FSB on the Q6600, no overvolt and nicely stable. I've set the ram (800mhz Corsair kit that can OC up to 2.1V 4-4-4-12) to 667mhz with 4-4-4-12 timings at 1.9volt.

So I have a 1:1 ratio , using the 333/667 strap, but... My mobo also has a strap for 333FSB with 800mhz ram.
Are we sure it's faster to use the 333/667 strap instead of the 333/800 one? Considering that I would OC the ram to 2.1 volt and keep the rated 4-4-4-12 timings.

I haven't seen many differences in Aida64. I actually saw worse latency with 333/667 instead of 333/800.

emu34b wrote on 2025-03-20, 21:03:

Depending on your board, you might be able to mod a 771 Xeon into it, usually for cheaper than the equivalent on Core 2. I've seen premodded CPUs with notches cut out and the tape applied to the pads before, and I myself own an E5450 with such a mod. L and E series here is usually more power efficient, produces less heat.

It's also kind of trivial to mod a Q6600 (probably works on Q6700 as well) to run at 3+ ghz with an appropriate board (that supports 1333 Mhz FSB) with a bit of tape over 2 pins and some appropriate RAM. Might suggest you get yourself a 775 board with DDR3, if only because it's easier and cheaper to find slow old DDR3 than fast DDR2.

Bear in mind Core 2, in the context of gaming on XP, is still really quite fast (both single and multicore) even without an overclock.

cyclone3d wrote on 2025-03-21, 02:53:

It is easier to mod the CPU socket than the CPU when doing a 771-775 mod. Just use an exact knife and cut the nubs off instead of filing the board on the CPU.

The stickers to swap the pads on the CPU around work great.

For locked CPUs, it is better to get a lower FSB one with a higher multiplier though it doesn't matter as much if you are pushing the fsb to the stratosphere, which is actually not hard to do on a good board.

Modding is beyond the scope of my intent. I'm alredy pretty happy with my lanparty DK P45. Yes, it's DDR2, but it's not like I'm gonna play games later than 2008/2009 on it. Got it to 333mhz FBS with the Q6600 (Go) without having to do any kind of overvolt, all nice and cool. I haven't tested it up to 400 (since it has a strap for 400mhz fsb), but I'm now pretty confident I could achieve it with little overvolt on the NB/SB and the CPU. And still keep it on the cool side.
And the Corsair kit I got also it's pretty stable. I'm currently running it at 667mhz, but it's rated for 800 4-4-4-12 at 2.1 volt. And I tested it at those rated values. And it sure works.

kagura1050 wrote on 2025-03-21, 03:50:

I used to be into overclocking on the LGA775 platform. In my opinion, for this purpose ASUS It is better to use mobo (preferably X38/48 DDR3) and E8500 (E8600 is too expensive in most cases, but E8500 is not. Also, even if you have a limited budget, it is better to avoid Q8xxx/E7xxx, because the TIM of these is grease. There have been cases of Lynnfield not being able to withstand the rated clock due to TIM deterioration, so these will also have the same fate).

I've overclocked more than 10 E8500s on 4 different motherboards (P5B, P5B deluxe, P5E3 Deluxe, GA-EP45-DQ6), and all of them ran at 4.5GHz (474*9.5)@1.55V. I remember the single-threaded score on CBR15 was around 120cb, which beats Sandy Bridge. It's probably good enough.

From experience, DDR2 mobos tend to struggle to stabilize above 480-490MHz FSB. DDR3 is easily achievable with a cheap stick lying around. It's worth spending a little more to get DDR3.

So 2 cores, right? I have a Lanparty DK P45, a DDR2 mobo that has a strap for 400mhz fsb, and officially supports up to 333. I'm alredy pushing the Q6600 to 333 without overvolts (Go), and I'm pretty confident it will hit a stable 400 with a CPU that has a stock 333 FSB, just with a little overvolt.
I've read reviews of the times, and this MOBO while being on the cheaper side, it was the cheaper side of the OC oriented MOBOs, and they read pretty good.

-

But, overall, this thread isn't for discussing OCing, we can do that on the system thread I've opened a month ago or so. I opened this one to resolve another doubt once and for all: What games from the XP era (2001/2006) do like? Fast single core performances or multicore performances.
Becase I don't care about building the fastest XP system possible (otherwise I would've got a much recent platform), I care about maxing out the platform I alredy have for the target software. In this case games not older than 2008. After that, I can easily go with Windows 7 without compatibility issues.
And older threads from both this forum and the internet (even 2008 discussion threads) have given me conflicting answers, with some saying to go for the fasterst single core performances you can get, and others saying to go with as many cores as you can get away with.

Now, just like I said in the thread, I feel (from bench data), that even with the Q6600 running at 3.0GHz I'm still CPU limited. I've put an HD6970 in it (wanted to keep it a surprise 'till I showed it in the other thread), and I can blast it at 1280x1024 with AA no problems, except when there's lot's of stuff going on on the screen, then GPU utilization drops. Something isn't feeding the GPU fast enough, and I think it's the CPU. That's why I'm looking for answers: I need to decide wich CPU to get as an upgrade. The fastet 4 core or the fastest 2 core I can put on a LGA 775.

Mondodimotori wrote on 2025-03-21, 11:43:

.. Yes, it's DDR2, but it's not like I'm gonna play games later than 2008/2009 on it.

that's the requirement then, so i think that means fastest e series is fine, those are really good for xp era games anyway. to be honest i have one and paired with even a middling 1gb graphics card and a few gb ram it runs W7 and Crysis, so i'm happy enough. (it actually runs saints row 3rd fine too, from 2011)

Multithreading support in games during that time period ranged from either non-existent to woeful. Crysis being the first big game with "multi-core support" was often criticized for how poorly it was implemented.

In those early days the only thing that mattered was single core performance.

Dual cores clocked higher than quad cores at the time, so dual core with the highest frequency you can get for your board will get you much better performance than a slower clocked quad-core.

Sleaka_J wrote on 2025-03-21, 12:58:

Multithreading support in games during that time period ranged from either non-existent to woeful. Crysis being the first big game with "multi-core support" was often criticized for how poorly it was implemented.

In those early days the only thing that mattered was single core performance.

Dual cores clocked higher than quad cores at the time, so dual core with the highest frequency you can get for your board will get you much better performance than a slower clocked quad-core.

The original Crysis was mainly single thread. That's why it got it's bad rep for being so hard to run. It was designed around CPUs having even faster single core performance. But they bet on the wrong horse.

The Warhead expansion campaign and sequels all support multi core and ran much better than the original release.

Most XP games were single threaded so I cant see a Q6600 having any more performance in game than an E8600.

True, but what about background processes? You still have other things going on that can be offloaded to other cores.

May not really matter as long as you have a dual core. The E8600 also has more cache and higher IPC.

I would put the E8500/8600 up against the Q/QX9xxx series and test them at the same clock speeds.

I can test this and post numbers.

Since we are going for absolute performance, I'll test on a DDR3 based board as well so I can push the FSB.

If you want testing on a DDR2 based board, I can do that as well.

Gimme a list of CPUs and a list of games.

What about the GPUs?

I'd expect 1333FSB / 667 dual RAM to be optimal, so long as the RAM gets to 1 lower on the important latencies from 800 to 667, For testing, I'd be inclined to use an older Cinebench (R10?) rather than a pure RAM test, to reflect realistic access patterns, if comparing with 800.

One interesting point, if you can tweak the affinity, the Core 2 Quads are dual Duo cores, so the Q6600 has 2x 4MB L2, so if you tie a single threaded game to the first core and spread the most common background stuff to 3rd and 4th, that may optimize cache for the primary task.

The Yorkfield Q9x50 quads have 2x 6MB, the 8000 series duos have 1x 6MB

Do still consider modding a 771 Xeon in. If not modding the socket then a premodded dual core might be your best bet. A Xeon X5460 might be the best of both worlds for you - 3.16 Ghz, 2x6 MB cache with 1333 Mhz FSB. Forcing it to do 1600 Mhz FSB (aka 400 mhz clamp) would yield a nice 3800 Mhz clock speed. X5270 might also be good if you want to lean on a dual core, 1333 mhz FSB, 6MB cache and 3.5 ghz base. Making this one do 1600 Mhz FSB would yield a 4.2 Ghz clock speed.

Looking at the Wikipedia article, there also seems to be some 3000 Xeons for 775 too, of both dual and quad core variety, using one might be a BIOS update away. Depends on price and availability of course.