with any card you can just cap power limit/undervolt in afterburner and use a 60 fps cap.

also a "950 E" doesn't exist, so if they are making things up i don't see any reason to trust other data from that database, similar to all the other auto-generated benchmark sites.

Per Techpowerup, the GTX 980 (non-Ti) offers the best performance per Watt. This is from their period correct review of the GTX 980 Ti, which falls slightly behind its older brother. You may want to double check how they measured this, as I'm not sure if their methodology is suitable for WinXP use.

BTW, if you intend to run DX6 era games on these cards, you likely won't have a good time. No 16-bit dithering will produce heavy banding in titles which only support 16-bit color depth (e.g. Thief 2). Dual booting with Win7 or Win10 and using a wrapper like dgVoodoo2 for problematic titles can improve things quite a bit.

auron wrote on 2025-07-09, 13:31:

also a "950 E" doesn't exist, so if they are making things up i don't see any reason to trust other data from that database, similar to all the other auto-generated benchmark sites.

I guess "950 E" means a GTX 950 card without 6-pin power connector, such as ASUS GTX950-2G - it's slightly slower than the regular GTX 950 due to the PCIe slot power limit.

Also, you probably won't be run all DX6 games using DX11 hardware due to late driver issues/incompatibility.
More realistic is DX7/DX8 up to DX9c.

Any pre-Undervolted Kepler-Maxwell 2.0.

For stock but official I'd say GTX 680/770, and for stock unofficial a GTX 980 would be "sweets spots" (if platform is capable enough).
If you can't power them due to power limitations of your PSU/case, GTX 750 (Ti) or GTX 950 would be my pick for next level down FPS/W optimal choise.

agent_x007 wrote on 2025-07-09, 18:38:

Also, you probably won't be run all DX6 games using DX11 hardware due to late driver issues/incompatibility. More realistic is D […]
Show full quote

Also, you probably won't be run all DX6 games using DX11 hardware due to late driver issues/incompatibility.
More realistic is DX7/DX8 up to DX9c.

Any pre-Undervolted Kepler-Maxwell 2.0.

For stock but official I'd say GTX 680/770, and for stock unofficial a GTX 980 would be "sweets spots" (if platform is capable enough).
If you can't power them due to power limitations of your PSU/case, GTX 750 (Ti) or GTX 950 would be my pick for next level down FPS/W optimal choise.

The frames/TDP for the 195 Watt GTX 680 is only 0.46, so that would be half as efficient as the GTX 980. From what I've seen Radeons of this era have better DX6 compatibility, so Radeons would be preferable, they just don't tend to be as efficient. The downside with the energy efficient R7 360 is you only have the iCafe drivers for XP and the next step up is 64-bit Windows 7, no 32-bit or Vista which would make more sense to dual boot without having an overkill XP machine.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-07-09, 14:40:

Per Techpowerup, the GTX 980 (non-Ti) offers the best performance per Watt. This is from their period correct review of the GTX 980 Ti, which falls slightly behind its older brother. You may want to double check how they measured this, as I'm not sure if their methodology is suitable for WinXP use.

At 1080p it looks like the energy efficient version of the GTX 950 should be more efficient than the GTX 980, given that the 900 series have similar figures and with the 950 the efficient version has about 17% lower TDP. Mind you the efficient version of the R7 360 has 50% the TDP of the normal version, so you'd have to adjust its efficiency numbers up a fair bit.

ott wrote on 2025-07-09, 15:24:

I guess "950 E" means a GTX 950 card without 6-pin power connector, such as ASUS GTX950-2G - it's slightly slower than the regular GTX 950 due to the PCIe slot power limit.

The attachment bf3_1920_1080.png is no longer available

they could write "GTX 950 (no 6-pin)" if that's actually the case here instead of coming up with their own naming.

these were really just meant for OEM machines with PSUs lacking 6-pin cables, there is no point in seeking out those cards otherwise. a regular card capped to 75W will probably get cleaner power than drawing everything from the slot, and has the extra headroom if it's needed.

agent_x007 wrote on 2025-07-09, 18:38:

Also, you probably won't be run all DX6 games using DX11 hardware due to late driver issues/incompatibility.
More realistic is DX7/DX8 up to DX9c.

Even that's optimistic. Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow is DX8.1 and will have problems. It uses shadow buffers that were last handled in hardware with the FX series. And unless there's something I'm unaware of, dgVoodoo2 doesn't work on XP to fix it.

I don't have experience with the R7 360 to speak on it. But the 950 is a 90W card with the lower power riding on the 75W the PCIe slot provides. While the 750ti is a 60W card and generally wouldn't ride up against the maximum power draw.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-gtx-950/21.html

The question is what does "late" XP mean. There were quite a few games that still supported DX9 but also had DX10 or even 11 support. Are those still XP games or are they better played on new versions of Windows? Under volting more powerful cards can get you a better number in frames/power draw, but a lower powered card might have under gone much less stress over its life. Are you looking at this academically, or trying to put together an XP machine to that won't heat up a room and last for years to come?

vvbee wrote on 2025-07-09, 20:39:

At 1080p it looks like the energy efficient version of the GTX 950 should be more efficient than the GTX 980, given that the 900 series have similar figures and with the 950 the efficient version has about 17% lower TDP. Mind you the efficient version of the R7 360 has 50% the TDP of the normal version, so you'd have to adjust its efficiency numbers up a fair bit.

According to TechPowerUp's GTX 950 reviews [1][2] - GTX 750Ti and GTX 980 share first place in the 1080p performance per watt test, the GTX 950 (no power connector) is slightly behind.

I have ASUS GTX750TI-PH-2GD5 and it's enough for me for all WinXP-era games under the 1280x1024 resolution. Regular 750Ti doesn't require extra power, so I can quickly swap it between my retro builds.

SScorpio wrote on 2025-07-09, 21:22:

The question is what does "late" XP mean. There were quite a few games that still supported DX9 but also had DX10 or even 11 support. Are those still XP games or are they better played on new versions of Windows? Under volting more powerful cards can get you a better number in frames/power draw, but a lower powered card might have under gone much less stress over its life. Are you looking at this academically, or trying to put together an XP machine to that won't heat up a room and last for years to come?

Reviews measured the R7 360 E (as I call it) at just under 50 W and performance identical to the 100 W normal version, with room for overclocking. It wasn't understood where the efficiency gain came from, but this kind of thing can obviously rewrite tables on performance per watt. So I'm generally interested in what options for efficient cards there are for DX6-9 under XP, and especially these less known efficient variants since they have the potential to be much better than baseline. The question of late isn't as important, it can be as late as anything so long as it supports XP and doesn't choke on earlier versions of DX.

vvbee wrote on 2025-07-09, 23:54:

DX6-9 under XP

Just a heads up, Nvidia ditched 16-bit dithering after the GeForce 7 series. ATi/AMD did the same after the Radeon X1800/X1900 line of cards. So anything newer than that won't properly render games that solely use 16-bit color depth, which does include some DX6 titles.

As mentioned previously, this is easily solved by using a wrapper, but those generally require Win7 or later to work.

Banding doesn't bother me, usually you can select 32 bit by DX6 anyway. The Matrox P690 from 2007 supports dithering and is specced for only 10 or so Watts, but no DX9. Always have to compromise on something.

vvbee wrote on 2025-07-09, 20:39:

agent_x007 wrote on 2025-07-09, 18:38:

Also, you probably won't be run all DX6 games using DX11 hardware due to late driver issues/incompatibility. More realistic is D […]
Show full quote

Also, you probably won't be run all DX6 games using DX11 hardware due to late driver issues/incompatibility.
More realistic is DX7/DX8 up to DX9c.

Any pre-Undervolted Kepler-Maxwell 2.0.

For stock but official I'd say GTX 680/770, and for stock unofficial a GTX 980 would be "sweets spots" (if platform is capable enough).
If you can't power them due to power limitations of your PSU/case, GTX 750 (Ti) or GTX 950 would be my pick for next level down FPS/W optimal choise.

The frames/TDP for the 195 Watt GTX 680 is only 0.46, so that would be half as efficient as the GTX 980.

As I wrote, GTX 680/770 is card with official support that I'd pick.
You can go up to GTX 960 (970/980/980 Ti are NOT supported by official drivers - mod is required), however I wouldn't pick a Maxwell 2.0 for optimal WinXP build.

In short : It's not about hardware, it's about software that comes with it.

Is Maxwell 2.0 better than Kepler in FPS/W ?
Yes.
Is it a valid choice for you ?
It can be, but it depends on programs/game you want to run.
Older games that don't like Maxwell 2.0 NV drivers, will give you hell - be ready for it.
^That last part decides if you CAN upgrade to Maxwell 2.0, or if you have to stay with Kepler.

Maybe so but I'm not bothered about an optimal XP build, more interested in energy efficient cards for XP with good compatibility in the DX6-9 range. Tough requirements. Typically this might be energy efficient special versions of Radeons, but why not others as well if they qualify. I tested a low wattage GTX 745 a few weeks ago but it failed all DX6 games and DX7 was hit or miss, so I'd say any given GeForce has to do better than this or be very, very efficient in the DX8-9 range.

agent_x007 wrote on 2025-07-10, 16:03:

As I wrote, GTX 680/770 is card with official support that I'd pick. You can go up to GTX 960 (970/980/980 Ti are NOT supported […]
Show full quote

vvbee wrote on 2025-07-09, 20:39:

agent_x007 wrote on 2025-07-09, 18:38:

Also, you probably won't be run all DX6 games using DX11 hardware due to late driver issues/incompatibility. More realistic is D […]
Show full quote

Also, you probably won't be run all DX6 games using DX11 hardware due to late driver issues/incompatibility.
More realistic is DX7/DX8 up to DX9c.

Any pre-Undervolted Kepler-Maxwell 2.0.

For stock but official I'd say GTX 680/770, and for stock unofficial a GTX 980 would be "sweets spots" (if platform is capable enough).
If you can't power them due to power limitations of your PSU/case, GTX 750 (Ti) or GTX 950 would be my pick for next level down FPS/W optimal choise.

The frames/TDP for the 195 Watt GTX 680 is only 0.46, so that would be half as efficient as the GTX 980.

As I wrote, GTX 680/770 is card with official support that I'd pick.
You can go up to GTX 960 (970/980/980 Ti are NOT supported by official drivers - mod is required), however I wouldn't pick a Maxwell 2.0 for optimal WinXP build.

In short : It's not about hardware, it's about software that comes with it.

Is Maxwell 2.0 better than Kepler in FPS/W ?
Yes.
Is it a valid choice for you ?
It can be, but it depends on programs/game you want to run.
Older games that don't like Maxwell 2.0 NV drivers, will give you hell - be ready for it.
^That last part decides if you CAN upgrade to Maxwell 2.0, or if you have to stay with Kepler.

Out of curiosity, are there any titles that are known to not play nice with Maxwell 2.0's driver range? I currently run a Titan X myself and have previous run a GTX 780, on my XP machine and I have yet to encounter any games that would run fine on kepler but not maxwell.

vvbee wrote on 2025-07-10, 19:22:

Maybe so but I'm not bothered about an optimal XP build, more interested in energy efficient cards for XP with good compatibility in the DX6-9 range. Tough requirements. Typically this might be energy efficient special versions of Radeons, but why not others as well if they qualify. I tested a low wattage GTX 745 a few weeks ago but it failed all DX6 games and DX7 was hit or miss, so I'd say any given GeForce has to do better than this or be very, very efficient in the DX8-9 range.

DX6-9 range is a very big ask as we're essentially talking about Voodoo2/Nvidia TNT era hardware up to and including GeForce 7 series. Shaders weren't even introduced until DirectX 8. From personal experience, anything from GeForce 6-series and newer is going to have compatibility issues with DX6 & 7 and I've had some games that just outright refused to run.

Alexraptor wrote on 2025-07-10, 21:46:

Out of curiosity, are there any titles that are known to not play nice with Maxwell 2.0's driver range? I currently run a Titan X myself and have previous run a GTX 780, on my XP machine and I have yet to encounter any games that would run fine on kepler but not maxwell.

I read about MGS2 and Chaos Theory that have issues on latest drivers.
Not sure how far back you have to go on driver versions to make them work fine... maybe 306.xx ?

agent_x007 wrote on 2025-07-10, 22:22:

I read about MGS2 and Chaos Theory that have issues on latest drivers.
Not sure how far back you have to go on driver versions to make them work fine... maybe 306.xx ?

I never played MGS2 on the PC, but Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory worked just fine on my GTX 970 with 355.98 drivers under WinXP. I replayed it earlier this year at 1600x1200 with maximum in-game settings, plus 4xSGSSAA added on top via drivers. Not a single glitch during the entire playthrough.

That said, all Splinter Cell games have issues with high frame rates. This isn't GPU related, it's just how the engine was coded. So you want to limit them to 60 FPS, even if your monitor supports more than that.

Alexraptor wrote on 2025-07-10, 21:46:

DX6-9 range is a very big ask as we're essentially talking about Voodoo2/Nvidia TNT era hardware up to and including GeForce 7 series. Shaders weren't even introduced until DirectX 8. From personal experience, anything from GeForce 6-series and newer is going to have compatibility issues with DX6 & 7 and I've had some games that just outright refused to run.

Makes for a very small and Radeon heavy list so far:

11.14 - Radeon R7 360 E
20.75 - Radeon R9 360

The Matrox P690 has good support for DX6-8 but no or limited DX9 features, so it had to go as well. I'm sure there's some newer Matrox with DX9 as well as decent backwards compatibility.

There's also the power connectorless R9 360 which I understand is an OEM R7 360, maybe with a 10% memory overclock. There's conflicting information about its TDP but I'm guessing 75 rather than 50, so its DX9 efficiency might be in the 0.7-0.8 range. I haven't checked but I assume the iCafe driver supports it.

Programmatically extracted GT/TDP ratios based on Wikipedia's tables for various Radeon series, top models 150 W TDP or under:

10.659 - Radeon HD 7790
20.659 - Radeon HD 8770
30.59 - Radeon R9 360
40.57 - Radeon R5 330
50.57 - Radeon R7 370
60.533 - Radeon HD 8870
70.524 - Radeon HD 7750

Several are OEM, and judging by eBay prices these are already known to be good or uncommon models. Not all of them may support XP, haven't checked.

The R7 360 E scores about 1.00 on this, so by far nothing better among the the normal models. There were probably lower TDP AIB versions of various models, but since even the best base models are only half as efficient as the R7 360 E it's safe to assume there are few to none better in the Radeon camp.

Some Radeons compared for efficiency in 3DMark 2000-3 (DX7-9). Athlon 64 X2 6000+ @ 2.8, undervolted. HD 5770 using Catalyst 10.2, HD 7970 GHz 13.4, and R7 360 E the 2015 iCafe driver. The 5770 is undervolted by about 10%. AA means 8xSSAA. Max resolution and 32 bit, first game benchmark + low detail.

FPS:

Looks like a CPU bottleneck where the HD 5770 benefits from lower driver overhead. Would probably have been better to run with forced vsync.

Average system Wattage:

FPS/Watts ratio:

The R7 360 E is increasingly the most efficient toward newer DX. For DX7 and probably DX6 the HD 5770 may be a better pick. But you'd probably crank up the AA, in which case the HD 7970 is more efficient, probably ditto for other high bandwidth cards.