I have tried to stabilize 4x 2GB at 1066 but it wasn't stable even at 2.3V. Cas latency is 9.375 ns with 5-5-5-15 which is probably too short for 4 modules.

Curious results.

It turns out no matter what you do AM2/AM3 systems have hard time competing with LGA775/core2. To me it explains why people mostly use intel for retro systems - it is simply better.

That system i am tested on is very simple and does not represent max possible performance from LGA775 - it is an office board with low-end chipset, ddr2 with completely default settings, pci-e 1.1, etc, etc. It even has no AHCI.

I wonder how something like i7-3770K compares to all this stuff...

Also even AM3 phenom2 lack full SSE4 support, which plays a role too...

Core 2 Duo E8600 at 3.3Ghz is actually a high-end CPU for 775. It doesn't matter if the board was a cheap one from office PC. Only Core 2 Duo E8700 is better but practically unobtainable, so you have the best dual core in that board. There is Core 2 Quad Q9650 at 3Ghz, which is available for a reasonable price from China, but the stock clock is lower. If you OCed it, it may do better than Phenom II but we are not doing that. If you ever manage to get it it cheap would be great. 3rd core does seem to help with some late games. Core 2 Quad Q9700 (2010) is unobtainable.

We need to consider that E8600 is 45nm tech from 2008. Windsor from 2007 was 90nm technology so very inferior. AMD 65nm in 2008 was a flop. Low clocks and no way to fit 6MB L3 cache. We really need it to compete with Intel. Only with AMD 45nm in 2009 we level the playing field with Intel from 2008. AMD was 1 year behind technologically.

If you want to reliably match Intel 775 DDR2 in AM2+ then you need Phenom II X4 965 BE (2009). I'm not doing that as I'm fine with 955 even though I have the 965 in a drawer.

If you get Intel 775 with DDR3, then you could have AM3 with DDR3. Phenom II X4 975 BE at 3.6Ghz is obtainable for a not bad price. Phenom II X6 1100T that I have should turbo to 3.7Ghz as long as max 3 cores are utilized. That CPU is rated for 3.7Ghz and the base clock could simply be raised to use it as a replacement for Phenom II X4 980 BE at 3.7Ghz.

The testing shows AMD can match Intel 775 but not of the same year due to technological lag. For retro rigs it doesn't matter. If you want a good performing Intel or AMD system, you can have that. You just cannot restrict yourself by year.

i7-3770K (2012) is another league, AM3 and Phenom II just can't compete with it. The best from AMD from that time is FX-8370 (2012) that I have ready for my AM3+ board. FX-9370 / FX-9590 are too dangerous with 220W TDP. I would expect it to lose to Intel though.

I re-tested GTX 480 and GTX 580 with driver 368.81 in Windows XP and confirm the major performance issue in Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 is gone. It was a regression that remained in NVidia driver for a long time since early GTX 4xx drivers.

New drivers unfortunately introduce a major regression in Grand Theft Auto IV (2008) in Windows 7. It is not an issue of using different detail level. I put back GTX 480 with NVidia driver 197.41 and got 62 fps. The last GPU that works well is GTX 580. A much newer driver may fix it for GTX 770, but it hasn't been found yet.

There seems to be no single driver without issues.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-07-30, 08:57:

There seems to be no single driver without issues.

Try the 355.98 driver.

I use that version (modded) with my GTX 980 Ti and have had good results. I haven't tested GTA IV on that system (I don't really play those games) but I found the aforementioned driver to be more stable than Nvidia's latest one for WinXP.

The Grand Theft Auto IV performance regression will likely not be fixed by 355.98. I already tried 332.21, 340.52, 368.81. It could be there for a very long time, just like the issue with Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2. It occurs in Windows 7, where I can test also much newer drivers on GTX 7xx cards. The next GPU to be tested is PNY GTX 780 which is an even bigger overkill than GTX 770. The reason for it is mainly late 2010 games with PhysX.

Interesting that you also have Core 2 Duo E8600, just like Archer57. Foxconn P35AX-S with LGA 776 and DDR2 is basically Intel's counterpart to AM2+. It has only 2 DIMM slots though, therefore supports max 4GB RAM which is too low for Vista era. This makes AM2+ with Phenom II an interesting option as it can support longer period due to more RAM. Aren't there LGA 775 DDR2 boards with 4 DIMM slots that support E8600? Core 2 Quads for 775 were quite low clocked unfortunately. Vista era can benefit from 3 cores.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-07-30, 10:18:

Interesting that you also have Core 2 Duo E8600, just like Archer57. Foxconn P35AX-S with LGA 776 and DDR2 is basically Intel's counterpart to AM2+. It has only 2 DIMM slots though, therefore supports max 4GB RAM which is too low for Vista era.

Yeah, I use that E8600 system as a highly overpowered Win9x rig, with some minor excursions to WinXP for games which use table fog.

As for the motherboard, I mainly got it because it had a floppy connector. Didn't really care about the RAM slots, as it wouldn't be running anything that needs more than 4 GB. Maybe some of the DDR3 boards from that era can handle more RAM, not sure.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-07-30, 10:18:

The Grand Theft Auto IV performance regression will likely not be fixed by 355.98. I already tried 332.21, 340.52, 368.81. It could be there for a very long time, just like the issue with Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2. It occurs in Windows 7, where I can test also much newer drivers on GTX 7xx cards. The next GPU to be tested is PNY GTX 780 which is an even bigger overkill than GTX 770. The reason for it is mainly late 2010 games with PhysX.

Interesting that you also have Core 2 Duo E8600, just like Archer57. Foxconn P35AX-S with LGA 776 and DDR2 is basically Intel's counterpart to AM2+. It has only 2 DIMM slots though, therefore supports max 4GB RAM which is too low for Vista era. This makes AM2+ with Phenom II an interesting option as it can support longer period due to more RAM. Aren't there LGA 775 DDR2 boards with 4 DIMM slots that support E8600? Core 2 Quads for 775 were quite low clocked unfortunately. Vista era can benefit from 3 cores.

The Nforce 680i based motherboards have 4 ram slots. I have two of them and both at one point had 8 gigs of ram with a E8600. They weren't bad windows 7 systems. But now I'll probably turn one of them back into a XP gaming system.

Performance regressions don't really matter much for Kepler/Maxwell in Windows 7, because you can use DXVK to play GTAIV and other stuff in Vulkan.

Testbench 19:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- Phenom II X4 955 BE 3.2Ghz HDZ955FBK4DGM (Deneb, stepping C3, released in 2009)
- PNY GeForce GTX 780 OC 3GB (1006/1059 GPU, 1552 memory, released in 2013). NVidia driver 368.81
- 4x 2GB DDR2 800 unganged running at 4 4 4 12

Phenom II X4 955 BE represents an OCed Phenom II X4 940 BE to 3.2Ghz which is a realistic scenario. 940 BE is an early stepping C2 and has less overclocking potential than C3. Un-core is running at 2Ghz vs 1.8Ghz on 940 BE. This can be adjusted in BIOS as Northbridge multiplier. Raising un-core frequency improves memory controller and L3 cache bandwidth. Un-core at 2Ghz is a realistic target for 940 BE.

We couldn't run 4x 2GB sticks at 1066 similarly to Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz. Only 2 memory sticks can run at that speed but we need 8GB RAM for Vista era.

PNY GeForce GTX 780 OC is a really powerful GPU that deserves at least FX-8370 or i7-3770K. Phenom II X4 955 BE is vastly underpowered for it.

3DMark 2006
3DMark 2006 is a DirectX 9 benchmark for Windows XP.

Windows XP

3DMark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768:

• Return To Proxycon - 54 fps
• Firefly Forest - 55 fps
• Canyon Flight - 124 fps
• Deep Freeze - 70 fps

3DMark 2006 breakdown, 1600x900:

• Return To Proxycon - 53 fps
• Firefly Forest - 55 fps
• Canyon Flight - 120 fps
• Deep Freeze - 70 fps

3DMark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200:

• Return To Proxycon - 53 fps
• Firefly Forest - 55 fps
• Canyon Flight - 118 fps
• Deep Freeze - 70 fps

Negligible improvement over GTX 770, results are within margin of error. We are CPU bottlenecked.

Windows 7

3DMark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768:

• Return To Proxycon - 57 fps
• Firefly Forest - 59 fps
• Canyon Flight - 130 fps
• Deep Freeze - 74 fps

3DMark 2006 breakdown, 1600x900:

• Return To Proxycon - 57 fps
• Firefly Forest - 60 fps
• Canyon Flight - 127 fps
• Deep Freeze - 73 fps

3DMark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200:

• Return To Proxycon - 57 fps
• Firefly Forest - 60 fps
• Canyon Flight - 124 fps
• Deep Freeze - 73 fps

Windows 7 score is a little bit higher. The reason is unknown, it could be better thread schedulling in Windows 7. The score is very close to Core 2 Duo E8600 in Windows XP, see Re: Any love for AM2? . Phenom II X4 965 BE would be needed to match it.

3DMark Vantage
3DMark Vantage is a DirectX 10 benchmark for Windows Vista.

Windows 7

3DMark Vantage breakdown, 1024x768:

• GPU test 1 (Jane Nash) - 97 fps
• GPU test 2 (New Calico) - 140 fps

3DMark Vantage breakdown, 1600x1200:

• GPU test 1 (Jane Nash) - 76 fps
• GPU test 2 (New Calico) - 81 fps

3DMark 2011
3DMark 2011 is a DirectX 11 benchmark for Windows 7. Custom preset was used. The only option changed was resolution.

Windows 7

3DMark 2011 breakdown, 1024x768:

• Graphics test 1 - 89 fps
• Graphics test 2 - 98 fps
• Graphics test 3 - 114 fps
• Graphics test 4 - 55 fps
• Physics test - 12 fps
• Combined test - 18 fps

3DMark 2011 breakdown, 1600x1200:

• Graphics test 1 - 44 fps
• Graphics test 2 - 45 fps
• Graphics test 3 - 66 fps
• Graphics test 4 - 31 fps
• Physics test - 12 fps
• Combined test - 18 fps

Games tested:
Windows XP
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 212 average fps in built-in benchmark.
- Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare (2007) - in 1600x1200 we get 250-500 fps (330 when aiming at tower with scope) in the initial mission outside of shooting room.
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we then get 48 average fps in built-in benchmark with the best visual quality settings.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1600x1200 average fps in benchmark is 60 without full screen anti aliasing. Everything else was set to max. When 4x anti aliasing is enabled, we get 58 average fps.
- S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (2007) - in 1600x1200 with max details we get 70-230 fps outside in the first mission
- Far Cry 2 (2008) - with max settings, in 1600x1200 we get 80 fps in the built-in "Demo Ranch" benchmark and 41 fps in the "Action Scene" benchmark.
- Need for Speed: Undercover (2008) - in 1600x1200 we get 40-65 fps in the city at the main menu. Not enough for enjoyable experience due to lows.
- Colin McRae: Dirt 2 (2009) - with ultra settings, in 1600x1200 we get 97 average fps in the built-in benchmark.
- Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. 2 (2010) - with max settings, anti aliasing set to 4x, in 1600x1200 we get 148 average fps in the built-in benchmark
Windows 7
- Crysis (2007) - in dx10 mode in 1600x1200 we get 47 average fps with very high quality and 4x anti aliasing in built-in benchmark. In dx9 mode with high details and 4x anti aliasing we get 58 fps.
- Grand Theft Auto IV (2008) - in 1600x1200 we get 49 average fps in the built-in benchmark with very high quality, view distance 50, detail distance 60, vehicle density 51 (double values from defaults). 11 FPS less than GTX 580.
- Resident Evil 5 (2009) - in 1600x1200 with max details and 4x anti aliasing we get 80 fps in fixed benchmark and 152 fps in variable benchmark.
- S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat (2009) - in 1600x1200 with max details (ultra) except for full screen anti-aliasing, dx11 mode we get the following results in the standalone benchmark: day 135 fps, night 151 fps, rain 181 fps, sun shafts 128 fps.
- Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II (2009) - with ultra settings, in 1600x1200 we get 54 average fps in the built-in benchmark.
- Metro 2033 (2010) - in 1600x1200 we get average 47 fps with very high quality except for SSAA and PhysX. With SSAA enabled we get average 36 fps. With PhysX enabled we get average 23 fps. With both SSAA and PhysX we get average 20 fps.
- Mafia II (2010) - in 1600x1200 we get average 108 fps with max settings including antialiasing, 16x anisotropic filtering but without Apex PhysX. With medium PhysX we get average 34 fps. With high PhysX we get average 32 fps.
- Aliens vs. Predator (2010) - in 1600x1200 with max details except for full screen anti-aliasing we get 147 fps
- Batman: Arkham City (2011) - in 1600x1200 we get average 121 fps with very high quality and FXAA high anti-aliasing without PhysX. With PhysX set to normal we get average 58 fps. With PhysX set to high we get average 49 fps.
- Sniper Elite V2 (2012) - in 1600x1200 with max details except for supersampling we get 141 fps

SiSoft Sandra 2013:
- memory bandwidth 9.75GB/s, 77% bandwidth efficiency
- cache bandwidth L1: 248GB/s, L2: 122GB/s, L3: 42GB/s

Conclusion about Phenom II X4 955 BE 3.2Ghz with GeForce GTX 780 and DDR2 800:
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- decent coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009)
- decent coverage of Windows 7 era (2010-2012), but some titles may have to be played with reduced settings, especially PhysX which needs to be off. Usage of PhysX probably requires a much stronger CPU.
- minimal benefit over GTX 770 even in late games. It seems GTX 680/770 is more than sufficient for Phenom II X4 955.
- it makes sense to use GTX 770 if the intention is to play early Windows 7 games as well without full screen anti-aliasing / PhysX.
- we saw a noticable regression in Grand Theft Auto IV. 11 fps less than GTX 580.
- I can recommend this AM3 4 core CPU for AM2+ systems even though it is a bit of a stretch as the top AM2+ only CPU is Phenom II X4 940 BE, which can be recommended as well.
- note: Phenom II X4 945/955/965 is not compatible with all AM2+ boards, it requires a dual power-plane. If not available, the CPU will run at 800Mhz. It is not resolvable via BIOS update. If your board doesn't have this feature, use Phenom II X4 940 BE.
- users considering Phenom II X4 965 or later will be better off in an AM3 board which introduced DDR3, SATA 3.0, USB 3.0.

Although I do have a GeForce 980 (Ti) available for testing, since we have already hit a wall it would be meaningless.

Initially, based on a few Vista era (2007-2009) titles it looked like AM2+ may struggle, but with Phenom II X4 955 BE coupled with a good GPU, it actually improves in Windows 7 era as dx11 games start to take advantage of more than 2 cores. The only pre-requisite is PhysX being off. It is thus able to cover a long period spanning Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7.

Summary

In total, 19 different configurations were tested and based on my findings I can make the following recommendations:

Best AM2 system
Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (Windsor, released in 2007)
- it is a clear winner for AM2. Look for part numbers ADX6400IAA6CZ, ADX6400CZWOF or ADX6400CZBOX. If you cannot find this CPU then buy Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (ADA6000IAA6CZ, ADA6000CZBOX, ADX6000IAA6CZ, ADX6000CZBOX) and OC it to 3.2Ghz. It should work without voltage adjustment.
- avoid Brisbane based CPUs as AMD cut L2 cache in half without providing L3 cache.
- GeForce 9800 GT and GTX 260 were found to be underpowered for Windsor. It benefited from GTX 480. More modern GPUs that will work well and are quieter are GTX 660, GTX 760 (Kepler), these are super cheap as nobody wants them. I would avoid GTX 650/750 as those tend to be quite slow and cost the same as GTX 660/760.
- pair it with 2x 2GB RAM that runs at DDR2 1066 spec. One of the test configurations ran at DDR2 1000 speed. It should work with 5 5 5 15 timings.
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU. Crysis (dx9) and STALKER are playable. Crysis runs better than the benchmark suggests. It is probably not worth it to install Windows Vista/7.
- SSD TRIM doesn't work in Windows XP using Samsung Magician, most likely due to AMD chipset driver. 3d party tool needs to be used.
- it doesn't match LGA 775 Core 2 Duo E8600 which probably benefits from its large cache. Windsor is 90nm technology while E8600 is 45nm which is 2 generations ahead. AMD simply could not fit L3 cache to Windsor with existing technology.
- see Re: Any love for AM2? for results, Re: Any love for AM2? , Re: Any love for AM2? and Re: Any love for AM2? for additional benchmark results for Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor)

Best AM2+ system
- Phenom based dual cores turned out to be a disappointment as their clocks are too low. AMD introduced capable dual cores with high clocks with 45nm Phenom II in 2010. It doesn't make much sense to consider them at this point as we have capable quad cores available in 2009.

Phenom II X4 955 BE 3.2Ghz (Deneb, stepping C3, released in 2009)
- it is a clear winner for AM2+. Look for part numbers HDZ955FBK4DGM, HDZ955FBK4DGI, HDX955WFK4DGM, HDX955FBK4DGM, HDX955FBK4DGI (some of these are not black editions). C3 stepping should OC better.
- GeForce GTX 580, GTX 770 were found to be a good match. GTX 670 should also work fine. GTX 670 / 770 (Kepler) are super cheap as nobody wants them and should be the preferred choice.
- pair it with 4x 2GB RAM that runs at DDR2 800 speed with 4 4 4 12 timings. It will not work at DDR2 1066 speed.
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- decent coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009)
- decent coverage of Windows 7 era (2010-2012), but some titles may have to be played with reduced settings, especially PhysX which needs to be off. Usage of PhysX probably requires a much stronger CPU.
- performance in Windows 7 era was a pleasant surprise as games start to benefit from 3rd core
- no problems with SSD TRIM in Windows 7
- it comes very close to LGA 775 Core 2 Duo E8600 (see Re: Any love for AM2?) in Windows 7 benchmarks. Probably related to more efficient thread scheduling. If matching/beating E8600 is important to you, go for Phenom II X4 965 BE 3.4Ghz.
- note: Phenom II X4 945/955/965 is not compatible with all AM2+ boards, it requires a dual power-plane. If not available, the CPU will run at 800Mhz. It is not resolvable via BIOS update. If your board doesn't have this feature, use Phenom II X4 940 BE.
- see Re: Any love for AM2? and Re: Any love for AM2?

Phenom II X4 940 BE 3.0Ghz (Deneb, stepping C2, released in 2009)
- it is an AM2+ specific CPU that doesn't work in AM3. Alternatively, a Phenom II X4 945 could be used (AM3, slightly higher HT speed). It has 6MB L3 cache compared to 2MB in Phenom I. Look for part number HDZ940XCJ4DGI
- choose this CPU if you would prefer not to use an AM3 CPU.
- should be used with the same GPU as stronger 3.2Ghz brother - GeForce GTX 670 / 770 (Kepler) even though it was tested with just GTX 480. Game performance should be better.
- pair it with 4x 2GB RAM that runs at DDR2 800 speed with 4 4 4 12 timings. It will not work at DDR2 1066 speed.
- same game coverage as 3.2Ghz brother
- see Re: Any love for AM2?

Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz (Agena, stepping B3, released in 2008)
- the best CPU from Phenom line, the rest is not worth it. You will probably end up pushing it 200Mhz higher which it should do without voltage adjustment. Stepping B3 doesn't have the TLB bug. Look for part number HD995ZXAJ4BGH
- choose this CPU if you would like to have the 1st generation Phenom
- pair it with 4x 2GB RAM that runs at DDR2 800 speed with 4 4 4 12 timings. It will not work at DDR2 1066 speed.
- should be used with GeForce GTX 660 / 760 (Kepler) as they are super cheap. I would avoid GTX 650/750 as those tend to be quite slow and cost the same as GTX 660/760.
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU, noticeable in games from 2008. Crysis (dx9) and STALKER are playable. It is worth it to install Windows 7.
- Windows 7 era (2010-2012) games start to benefit from 3rd core, but this CPU is too slow. Detail level will likely need to be reduced for enjoyable experience.
- see Re: Any love for AM2?

AlexZ wrote on 2025-07-31, 11:50:

I would avoid GTX 650/750 as those tend to be quite slow and cost the same as GTX 660/760.

Not sure about 650, but you underestimate GTX750. It is a great card, still clearly CPU limited on PhenomII (the same results with different resolutions all the way to 1080P) and very power efficient. Most cards have no power connector which means <75W TBP, though it does limit overclocking (power limit can not be raised above 100% while most cards with power connector offer ~110-130% maximum). The version i've tested is 2GB one though, not sure if that makes any difference compared to 1GB.

This cards runs crysis on win7 with max settings/1080P and FPS consistent with results you've posted for CPU limitations...

Faster card (like GTX660 i am using with E8600) can be beneficial only at higher resolution or to max out AA.

Precisely, users may want to run games at higher anti-aliasing settings or resolutions than I did. 1920×1080 is basically same as 1600x1200. They may want to run at 2560×1440. I used 1600x1200 because I had a CRT monitor, but I would recommend LCD for AM2. I didn't have enough time to tune the settings for each game that still result in enjoyable experience. Benchmarks can sometimes be misleading. The extra performance could also be useful for cinematic sequences when not much is happening and player cannot do anything. If someone already has GTX 750, they can use that. If they want to buy a new GPU, they should probably go for GTX 660/760 due to low price. I wouldn't even bother with GTX 4xx or GTX 5xx. Many are hot running founder editions.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-07-31, 12:14:

Precisely, users may want to run games at higher anti-aliasing settings or resolutions than I did. 1920×1080 is basically same as 1600x1200. They may want to run at 2560×1440. I used 1600x1200 because I had a CRT monitor, but I would recommend LCD for AM2. I didn't have enough time to tune the settings for each game that still result in enjoyable experience. Benchmarks can sometimes be misleading. The extra performance could also be useful for cinematic sequences when not much is happening and player cannot do anything. If someone already has GTX 750, they can use that. If they want to buy a new GPU, they should probably go for GTX 660/760 due to low price. I wouldn't even bother with GTX 4xx or GTX 5xx. Many are hot running founder editions.

It depends on goals. Great thing about GTX750 is power/heat. It is also practically sufficient for XP games up to 1080p. So it is a matter of tradeoff - higher resolution/AA or lower power/heat. Not everybody needs crazy resolutions and/or AA for XP gaming...

By the way crysis is a funny game:

This is 2160p+8xAA, RTX2080S. Can not maintain 60FPS... not sure GTX750vsGTX760 would really make a difference here at higher resolutions 😁

My main LCD monitor is 2560 x 1440 and if I was going to buy another one it would have the same resolution for work purposes. I would not be buying a 1920 x 1080 LCD these days for sure. If someone already has it then it can be a great choice for Windows XP gaming especially if they can get a GTX 750 for free.

I find that powerful high-end GPUs can be quiet too if they are CPU bound. One such example is GTX 275 in my Athlon 64 3400+ rig. You would think that it is a monster that will kill itself with heat. It runs up to 72'C in Sanctuary benchmark (and is noisy, after I re-pasted it and fixed fan regulation) but in games it is usually 55-60'C and is very quiet. It is a founders edition which tend to be noisy.

In https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-660.c895 and https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-760.c1857 we can see that there are many 2-3 fan cards to choose from. If re-pasted, they should all be quiet in an AM2 rig while gaming.

I don't see AM2 as a dx10 gaming platform. AM2+ can do it with limits.

If low TDP is a high priority for someone then they can give GTX 750 a chance. Perhaps someone will come forward and do another round of testing focused purely on 6400+ Windsor and mid-range cards in Windows XP in higher resolutions than I tested. Using higher resolutions in Windows XP for gaming is tempting as late Windows XP games look really nice in contrast to Windows 98 games.

AlexZ wrote on 2025-07-31, 14:11:

My main LCD monitor is 2560 x 1440 and if I was going to buy another one it would have the same resolution for work purposes... If someone already has it then it can be a great choice for Windows XP gaming especially if they can get a GTX 750 for free.

Warning to anyone thinking about this combo : Those three things do not work together by default.
A driver hex edit hack is required, which allows 1440p60 mode to be available (default is 1080p60).
Unless you have VGA capable 1440p monitor, then you are good to go 😀

agent_x007 wrote on Yesterday, 16:18:

Warning to anyone thinking about this combo : Those three things do not work together by default. A driver hex edit hack is req […]
Show full quote

AlexZ wrote on 2025-07-31, 14:11:

My main LCD monitor is 2560 x 1440 and if I was going to buy another one it would have the same resolution for work purposes... If someone already has it then it can be a great choice for Windows XP gaming especially if they can get a GTX 750 for free.

Warning to anyone thinking about this combo : Those three things do not work together by default.
A driver hex edit hack is required, which allows 1440p60 mode to be available (default is 1080p60).
Unless you have VGA capable 1440p monitor, then you are good to go 😀

Is this only a problem with the 750 in xp? I had a hand full of cards that all worked with both 1440p and 1536p in xp out of the box if not by adding it in the nv control panel.

Does the 1080p limit also apply to display port? I thought it affects HDMI only. Also the last recommended driver seems to be 355.98. On later driver monitor gets reportedly detected as hdtv.

old school gamer man wrote on Yesterday, 16:27:

agent_x007 wrote on Yesterday, 16:18:

Warning to anyone thinking about this combo : Those three things do not work together by default. A driver hex edit hack is req […]
Show full quote

AlexZ wrote on 2025-07-31, 14:11:

My main LCD monitor is 2560 x 1440 and if I was going to buy another one it would have the same resolution for work purposes... If someone already has it then it can be a great choice for Windows XP gaming especially if they can get a GTX 750 for free.

Warning to anyone thinking about this combo : Those three things do not work together by default.
A driver hex edit hack is required, which allows 1440p60 mode to be available (default is 1080p60).
Unless you have VGA capable 1440p monitor, then you are good to go 😀

Is this only a problem with the 750 in xp? I had a hand full of cards that all worked with both 1440p and 1536p in xp out of the box if not by adding it in the nv control panel.

It's HDMI issue, but DP is also limited to HBR1 speed (so 1440p at ~90Hz max.).
Some context : Re: Windows XP at high resolutions with scaling

- Phenom based dual cores turned out to be a disappointment as their clocks are too low. AMD introduced capable dual cores with high clocks with 45nm Phenom II in 2010. It doesn't make much sense to consider them at this point as we have capable quad cores available in 2009.

Dual-core Phenom II is just a gimped quad-core, same silicon. And AMD were definitely reserving their best silicon for stuff like Phenom II 975/980.