Barley wrote on Yesterday, 13:51:

My only regret is that the GTX 970, 980, 980 ti and Titan X all have higher performance than the R9 280X, but the scaling issues make it frustrating.

This isn't an issue if you use a monitor which can perform aspect ratio scaling over HDMI/DisplayPort/DVI.

For example, the ASUS ProArt PA248QV does this automatically. Its native resolution is 1920x1200, but it also displays 1600x1200 perfectly, i.e. by simply centering the image. Lower resolutions like 1024x768 and 800x600 also work fine, meaning they get pillarboxed. No GPU driver scaling is needed in that case.

P.S.

Be warned that the PA248QV cannot scale 320x200, which always ends up in widescreen, so it's not a good choice for a DOS rig. But for Win9x and WinXP, it's a great fit.

Barley wrote on Yesterday, 13:51:

UWM8 wrote on Yesterday, 12:17:

Have ever tried a R9 280x on Xp?

Yes. It works seamlessly. The correct driver to use is 14-4-xp32-64-dd-ccc-pack2. Scaling works without a hitch.

My only regret is that the GTX 970, 980, 980 ti and Titan X all have higher performance than the R9 280X, but the scaling issues make it frustrating.

In the official R9 280x AMD Driver page, windows xp version is missing : https://www.amd.com/en/support/downloads/driv … on-r9-280x.html
but it is available for the 270x 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

Joseph_Joestar wrote on Yesterday, 14:07:

This isn't an issue if you use a monitor which can perform aspect ratio scaling over HDMI/DisplayPort/DVI. […]
Show full quote

Barley wrote on Yesterday, 13:51:

My only regret is that the GTX 970, 980, 980 ti and Titan X all have higher performance than the R9 280X, but the scaling issues make it frustrating.

This isn't an issue if you use a monitor which can perform aspect ratio scaling over HDMI/DisplayPort/DVI.

For example, the ASUS ProArt PA248QV does this automatically. Its native resolution is 1920x1200, but it also displays 1600x1200 perfectly, i.e. by simply centering the image. Lower resolutions like 1024x768 and 800x600 also work fine, meaning they get pillarboxed. No GPU driver scaling is needed in that case.

P.S.

Be warned that the PA248QV cannot scale 320x200, which always ends up in widescreen, so it's not a good choice for a DOS rig. But for Win9x and WinXP, it's a great fit.

Sir, thanks to you and others whose posts I meticulously read over the last few weeks, I did acquire a used ASUS ProArt PA248QV and got the scaling to work flawlessly on a GTX 980 Ti. But I like to have options and not be tied to a specific monitor to get scaling to work. It's just important that everyone who wants to use these cards in Windows XP know the hoops they have to jump through.

UWM8 wrote on Yesterday, 15:26:

Barley wrote on Yesterday, 13:51:

UWM8 wrote on Yesterday, 12:17:

Have ever tried a R9 280x on Xp?

Yes. It works seamlessly. The correct driver to use is 14-4-xp32-64-dd-ccc-pack2. Scaling works without a hitch.

My only regret is that the GTX 970, 980, 980 ti and Titan X all have higher performance than the R9 280X, but the scaling issues make it frustrating.

In the official R9 280x AMD Driver page, windows xp version is missing : https://www.amd.com/en/support/downloads/driv … on-r9-280x.html
but it is available for the 270x 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

Correct. But the driver I listed just works. No modifications needed. My model is a Sapphire Dual X R9 280X. I believe the Device Manager lists it as "AMD Radeon R9 200 Series"