senrew wrote:

EDIT: Secondary question...are there any recommended driver versions for this video card? Since it'll be run under XP most of the time, at what point do the drivers hinder DX9 performance?

Well, since it's already DX10/made-for-Vista since release, I don't think it will make any difference, apart from specific games optimizations. Why do you think the DX9 performance will be crippled? The DX9 path stays there in later DX versions and the majority of games still use it well into Vista/7 era.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

The Titanium PCIe is a much newer card. It is of higher quality and that is the main reason I would go for them.

Higher quality? As in better DACs? Will there be discernible differences in sound quality? Or do you mean better build quality, better caps etc?

archsan wrote:

The first-gen X-Fi cards actually look much nicer with the gold plates indeed. The Titanium series look like a toy in comparison (except maybe the two-channel Ti HD). Assuming there's no practical difference for gaming purposes between the two generations (EMU20K1 vs EMU20K2), apart from the PCI vs PCIe interface, I'll actually go for the first-gen. Also having a legacy PCI card adds to the retro touch/feel. 😎

The PCI boards have better options for I/O, including hardware MIDI. Grab one with a 5.25" bay or the console breakout box (only came with the PCI Platinum cards). The PCIe cards dumbed down the I/O, no longer do they have things like SPDIF, optical, 7.1-channel analog and a whole bunch of analog inputs.... and no MIDI.

I have read there are compatibility problems with chipsets that lack native PCI though. Seems that the EMU20k1 isn't well behaved behind a PCIe-to-PCI bridge, something the EMU20k2 fixed.

OK, to answer my own question, a quick look at wikipedia shows that only two models use different (better) DAC: Elite Pro (first gen/PCI) and Titanium HD (PCIe, two-channel, no analog surround output, no XP support). The latter is geared for the hi-end PC audio niche market.

Also yes, the I/O options are better on the first gen as well.

As for native PCI support, X58 and Q77/Q75/B75 (LGA1155) are among the latest ones that still have it. Core 2 boards def won't have any problem with it.

The Titanium HD is NOT compatible with Windows XP

I realised this the hard way. Wanted to build a dedicated XP gaming machine with this card. It is now in my capture PC for audio recording 😀

Yes there have been issues with PCI cards and certain motherboards. With Titanium PCIe sounding better is purely subjective. Make what you want from it 🤣 I used to have a Xtreme Gamer and was a hardcore BF2142 player. When I upgraded to the Titanium PCIe I heard a definite improvement. Definitely try some decent headphones with CMSS-3D.

As for DX9 drivers, I always go on a game by game basis. Study the release notes a few months after a game launched and you will usually find references to that game, either regarding improved performance or compatibility.

Having been in essentially your same situation with wanting an "inbetween" for DOSbox, 9x, and 7/8 (I actually had some of the same games on my list too!) I settled on Windows XP with a few criteria based on my Windows 7 machine having previously run XP and having noted issues:

- Single-core, non-SMT CPU. This is an absolute must for some DX7-8 games, as some of them have issues with SMP or HT or what-have-you (usually they don't run stable, they run too fast, or they won't install). The Athlon64 or AthlonXP in your list would probably be the best choices here - I'd go with the Athlon64 if possible because it supports SSE2 and 3, and this can be a factor for some later games.

- Single GPU, non-USM, and not geared/optimized extensively for DX9 SM2+. Of the cards you've listed, the GeForce 4 Ti is the best possible choice. Multi-GPU systems (especially when it's a dual gpu card, where they're basically "locked" together) can cause troubles with un-optimized, old, etc games resulting in everything from constant crashes, on-screen glitches, very bad (unplayable) performance, etc.

I would avoid the 9800GX2, the P4 (if it's an HT model, unless you can live with turning that off and leaving it off), and the HD 4650 (especially if it's an AGP card 😵). I wouldn't even consider the Q6600.

I know, it isn't the "fastest possible machine" - but the bulk of the games you've got on your list will specify a mid-speed Pentium III as their CPU requirement, and usually list a 32MB graphics card or lower for GPU. The GF4 Ti will be powerful enough to get through most anything that you can't get working under 7/8 (I have yet to see a DX9 game that doesn't work on Vista-later, a few will require being run as administrator or other minor tweaks, but none out and out refuse to run or become BSoD factories), but if you want to run extremely high resolutions or with a lot of IQ, I would step up to a GeForce FX (I don't like suggesting Radeon 9 because of their heat/lifecycle/etc issues). GeForce 6 will be silly overkill for everything, but wouldn't be a bad choice if you want to christen the machine Ricky Bobby. 🤣

As far as the soundcard, the Audigy SE will be compatible and functional for what you need, but a "full" Audigy 2 ZS would likely be the best choice in terms of performance, compatibility, and stability (I *loathe* the X-Fi drivers so you won't see me suggesting one).

archsan wrote:

Higher quality? As in better DACs? Will there be discernible differences in sound quality? Or do you mean better build quality, better caps etc?

I'm curious about this too. The Elite Pro technically has the highest specs of any X-Fi (and measures as well as some true professional cards, according to ixbt), but it isn't like any of those 1-2 dB SNR differences or .000001% THD variations are going to result in some big, dramatic, glaring audible differences.

The Titanium HD has the best DAC, but it's made specifically for high-end stereo/two-channel use (music) and not for gaming. Whether one would want to put a "Creative" product in their high-end audio system is another matter 😁.

As for studio/professional specs, to put it succinctly, they're important in studio situations to keep the noise floor as low as possible throughout the whole mixing/mastering process. For gaming or even music listening, I suppose it won't be all that important.

As for the specs you're suggesting, that sounds like a Win9x machine to me (single core, GF4Ti + A2ZS). Though yes, I'll stick with a single GPU card myself (no SLI/CF) for XP, in general, now that more powerful GPUs are available. The problem with running DX9 games with support for EAX Advanced HD in Vista/7/8, is of course you have to emulate EAX via ALchemy and this may not work the same as the original (hardware-accelerated mode).

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

With Titanium PCIe sounding better is purely subjective. Make what you want from it 🤣 I used to have a Xtreme Gamer and was a hardcore BF2142 player. When I upgraded to the Titanium PCIe I heard a definite improvement. Definitely try some decent headphones with CMSS-3D.

Assuming your XtremeGamer has 2MB RAM and your newer PCIe Tit-Fat has 64MB, and that BF2142 is likely to support the use of X-Fi's RAM, could that be the reason why you heard improvement?

Well...this project is a no go with the WTF hardware. Motherboard is dead. I'll need to find a replacement to use the parts with or just build up something else.

The ti4600 paired with either the p4 or the athlon64 would be a pretty good match up for xp. Set it up while you are getting the replacement parts for the WTF build and see if it suits your needs, if it is to slow swap the WTF build parts in once you get that squared away 😀

senrew wrote:

Well...this project is a no go with the WTF hardware. Motherboard is dead. I'll need to find a replacement to use the parts with or just build up something else.

Ow, that's unfortunate 🙁

Anyway it's useful to have a GF4Ti rig around to complement the V5 rig, whether it's win9x or XP (or both), so yeah why not give it a go.

archsan wrote:

As for the specs you're suggesting, that sounds like a Win9x machine to me (single core, GF4Ti + A2ZS).

That hardware would be silly powerful by 1998 standards. 🤣 (remember, Voodoo2 was state of the art when Windows 98 came out)

Athlon64, the GF4 (or a newer GF6), an Audigy, 512-1024MB of RAM, and it should be good to go running XP and playing the few games that don't "fit" between the Win98 build outlined in the original post, and Windows Vista-later. 😎 This isn't to diminish the 9800GX2 or Q6600 as competent performers, but they're not hardware I'd want to waste on WindowsXP - I can't think of a single game that actually requires XP to run, and needs their level of performance at the same time. 😊

Note that I'm "against" SMP because of having had issues with many games from this era with multi-core systems; also note that very few games from this era even care about the second core even if they don't have issues, and the Athlon64 will have fine single-threaded performance for anything this old. 😀

On ALchemy: I've never had good luck with ALchemy - the 2 or 3 games I have that actually use EAX tended to become unstable running with ALchemy (tested this on both X-Fi and SoundCore); under XP I had no problems with EAX on either X-Fi or Audigy 2 ZS, and the number of games that actually require/use EAX5 and X-RAM are very few (BF2142 being one of them, and probably the most popular). Basically I never really got the "mania" around EAX, and didn't even really notice its removal in Vista and later - it's just a tick-box I can't enable in 2 or 3 titles and that doesn't affect my enjoyment-value of those games.

Then try NOLF2 at 2560x1440 (custom res patch available) + FSAA on a GF4Ti. With EAX HD (Audigy1 is just fine for EAX 3 games). I actually prefer decent surround setup but I know Phil likes his headphones + CMSS3D. 😀

And isn't that the issue? If EAX (or A3D) doesn't matter, and "performance" doesn't even matter, then there's even less of a reason for building an XP (or 9x) rig at all. Might as well grab a cheap XP/9x laptop just to play the few games that really need XP/9x to run well. OK, that's an exaggeration but you get the idea. Didn't I read somewhere that "overkill" is a non-issue today? Whatever happened to that spirit? 😉

obobskivich wrote:

archsan wrote:

As for the specs you're suggesting, that sounds like a Win9x machine to me (single core, GF4Ti + A2ZS).

That hardware would be silly powerful by 1998 standards. 🤣 (remember, Voodoo2 was state of the art when Windows 98 came out)

Oh, don't you dare teach me about 1998! It's my favorite year in terms of 3D and computing! 😁

Yep, silly powerful it is by 1998. So-so by the end of 2003. Win9x (incl. A3D-supporting) games span up to 2002~2004 or so, by which games started to officially support XP as standard. Which is why I'd actually recommend GF4Ti or GF-FX for DX5~8/win9x stuff over a V5. Convenience. And even a 9800GX2 running XP won't be so much a waste as a 9800GX2 packed in the closet. Besides you can still install something 64-bit on it if you want (just like you can install XP on that 9x GF4Ti rig), just to make the Quad less guilty. Put the GX2 to death by CUDA-crunching/rendering stuff or whatever.

If the argument were based on power usage/efficiency--all the more reason to use newer hardware. i3 ULV or something like that, Nvidia Maxwell (GTX750 has only 55W TDP, compare that to 9800GX2, or 60W* 750Ti to a 295/480/4870X2 for that matter) etc etc. In case you can make them run on XP that is.

*more like 39W or so in practice i've read.

archsan wrote:

Then try NOLF2 at 2560x1440 (custom res patch available) + FSAA on a GF4Ti. With EAX HD (Audigy1 is just fine for EAX 3 games). I actually prefer decent surround setup but I know Phil likes his headphones + CMSS3D. 😀

Who had 2560x1440 in 1998 (or even 2002 for that matter) outside of NASA? 🤣

And isn't that the issue? If EAX (or A3D) doesn't matter, and "performance" doesn't even matter, then there's even less of a reason for building an XP (or 9x) rig at all. Might as well grab a cheap XP/9x laptop just to play the few games that really need XP/9x to run well. OK, that's an exaggeration but you get the idea. Didn't I read somewhere that "overkill" is a non-issue today? Whatever happened to that spirit? 😉

Very much an exaggeration, and I do stand by "there is no such thing as overkill" - but I'm also a pragmatist; senrew already owns all of the hardware I mentioned (I specifically "shopped" from the list in the first post), and free (as in beer) trumps wanton overkill any day. I'm also pretty sure a GeForce 4 Ti would fit "wanton overkill" for SimCity 3000, Indy Jones: Infernal Machine, etc... 🤣

I think the only game in the original list that may pose an issue is Battlefront 2; I know the original had serious issues when run on either of my SMP systems, but I also know it ran without any issues on an AthlonXP with various cards over time (I haven't bothered to re-load it on my P4/FX build). I'm going to venture that the sequel should be playable on the Ti with an A64, but I wouldn't be surprised if 2560x1440 with 32x AA and custom 16k textures would lag... 🤣

The Athlon64 is a fine foundation for a killer XP build regardless - if spending money is an option, a GF6800 would be a fine candidate imho.

Oh, don't you dare teach me about 1998! It's my favorite year in terms of 3D and computing! 😁

😘 😀

Yep, silly powerful it is by 1998. So-so by the end of 2003. Win9x (incl. A3D-supporting) games span up to 2002~2004 or so, by which games started to officially support XP as standard. Which is why I'd actually recommend GF4Ti or GF-FX for DX5~8/win9x stuff over a V5. Convenience. And even a 9800GX2 running XP won't be so much a waste as a 9800GX2 packed in the closet. Besides you can still install something 64-bit on it if you want (just like you can install XP on that 9x GF4Ti rig), just to make the Quad less guilty. Put the GX2 to death by CUDA-crunching/rendering stuff or whatever.

But the 9800GX2 may mean compatibility issues with some games. Personally I'd rather see the Q6600/9800GX2 running a modern OS though - hardware like that doesn't deserve to be wasted sitting in a closet *or* running applications that will barely nudge it out of idle.

Also remember that we don't need to cover every game from 2000 to 2003 - games like Half-Life 2, FarCry, etc will run under newer versions of Windows, and it's reasonable to assume that the Windows 8.1 computer with the 4770 mentioned in the first post is probably a much better candidate for those games. 😊

The majority of games that would truly give me issues I own via Steam or GOG so those are for the most part irrelevant. I don't own too many physical games that fit this inbetween category, but so far from what I've found, the A64/Ti4600 will be just fine for them. The wife has been wanting to join me in building up one of my machines so I'm going to make that a his/her project for later tonight maybe.

@obobskivich

Actually I never suggested senrew to buy anything new from the start. I was actually suggesting that he consider installing XP (i.e. dual/multi-boot) on his i7 machine (of course that is unlikely to work, since it's a Haswell platform, unlike my olden X58 -- my bad). From there on the discussion progressed to this "WTF" stuff he got, and EAX.

obobskivich wrote:

Who had 2560x1440 in 1998 (or even 2002 for that matter) outside of NASA? 🤣

Well I'm talking today.

As for Infernal machine etc he already said earlier those don't really need to be played on the XP machine--only Battlefront II from his current list (page 1). Well if he doesn't have any intention to 'max out' EAX HD games (EAX >2 in his own words) then that's alright by me. Who am I to tell you how to enjoy your stuff?

Also remember that we don't need to cover every game from 2000 to 2003 - games like Half-Life 2, FarCry, etc will run under newer versions of Windows, and it's reasonable to assume that the Windows 8.1 computer with the 4770 mentioned in the first post is probably a much better candidate for those games. 😊

Back to EAX comments above. Of course I'd rather play all games on 7 myself if not for the EAX/A3D issue.

I guess I'll stop the nitpicking exchange here 😉

@senrew

senrew wrote:

The majority of games that would truly give me issues I own via Steam or GOG so those are for the most part irrelevant. I don't own too many physical games that fit this inbetween category, but so far from what I've found, the A64/Ti4600 will be just fine for them. The wife has been wanting to join me in building up one of my machines so I'm going to make that a his/her project for later tonight maybe.

Aw, that's sweet... 😀 Have a good time then!

Btw senrew, have you tried the workarounds mentioned here for running Battlefront II on your win8 machine? I keep reading things about plugging in a microphone to keep the game from crashing.

senrew wrote:

The majority of games that would truly give me issues I own via Steam or GOG so those are for the most part irrelevant. I don't own too many physical games that fit this inbetween category, but so far from what I've found, the A64/Ti4600 will be just fine for them. The wife has been wanting to join me in building up one of my machines so I'm going to make that a his/her project for later tonight maybe.

Sounds like a cool plan. 😀

archsan wrote:

@obobskivich

Actually I never suggested senrew to buy anything new from the start. I was actually suggesting that he consider installing XP (i.e. dual/multi-boot) on his i7 machine (of course that is unlikely to work, since it's a Haswell platform, unlike my olden X58 -- my bad). From there on the discussion progressed to this "WTF" stuff he got, and EAX.

XP on the i7 may work (there are some earlier iterations that will do it, but some newer ones won't - afaik X58 isn't the final cutoff), unless you run into the SMP bugs (and honestly I can't say any of the games on the list would; I speculate that BF2 might, but otherwise don't know for certain - if I remember right SC3k and some of the later Indy Jones games ran without much fuss on my dual-core Athlon64).

Well I'm talking today.

I was being facetious. 🤣

As for Infernal machine etc he already said earlier those don't really need to be played on the XP machine--only Battlefront II from his current list (page 1). Well if he doesn't have any intention to 'max out' EAX HD games (EAX >2 in his own words) then that's alright by me. Who am I to tell you how to enjoy your stuff?

Back to EAX comments above. Of course I'd rather play all games on 7 myself if not for the EAX/A3D issue.

I guess I'll stop the nitpicking exchange here 😉

No problem with back-and-forth imho; all in good fun, right? 😀

Out of curiosity - have you gotten EAX/ALchemy to actually work under 7? And if so, is it game-dependent? (maybe I just have bad luck with the games I've got/tried) Or is there some "gotcha" to it? 😅

archsan wrote:

Btw senrew, have you tried the workarounds mentioned here for running Battlefront II on your win8 machine? I keep reading things about plugging in a microphone to keep the game from crashing.

Yep, got into finding those a little later this afternoon and I'll give them a try. Plugging in something to the headphone jack or messing around with the mixer settings. Either way, I'll get that damn game to play. It's not really that high on my "to play" list, but it gives me an excuse to obsess over hardware 😀

Going to start the build in a few minutes here with the wife. She's all excited.

HT can just be disabled in BIOS. Shouldn't be an issue 😀

Same goes for i5 and i7. Many BIOS can disable cores. Same with AMD. Also there are single core chips. Celeron and Sempron.

My dedicated XP box, if I ever build one, would be a Core 2 Duo, 4 GB Ram, GeForce 250 GTS 1 GB, X-Fi Titanium PCIe. Likely one of the later E7xxx chips, they are quite chip. Wolfdale cores still sell for a premium.