After some research it seems a 2 cores processer is the better choice for an XP gaming build. So its either an E8700 or the i3 3250 which is the latest 2 cores processor with XP drivers.

My personal experience is it doesn't matter how many "cores" there are if there's more than 1. Most software will ignore it, which makes single processor performance more significant. Obviously you know some software throws a fit, which is sometimes resolved by setting affinity, other times more drastic measures are needed.

But I've never heard of software that doesn't mind 2 processors but freaks out about 4. I would pay close attention to single core performance, and also consider what you're running to determine what the best choice is.

Graphics, I personally selected a GTX 460 price/performance in 2010. Compatibility is not perfect, notably the NTVDM colors and fonts are messed up, but it's become the norm to use DOSbox for it anyway, and the remaining issues I know of (like Splinter Cell) only seem to work on a much older card like my Radeon 9700 PRO. Don't even get me started on Anachronox.

I checked and the 285 is a lot slower and somehow uses more power than the card I have:
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare/Ge … TX-460/1444vs31

Does depend on what you're doing, but that card will struggle with some higher settings on stuff closer to 2010 than 1999. I know because my card has limits. I can pretty much run what I like, but there's not a lot of headroom; the newer games I have played like Gothic 3 (2006) will bring you to a halt, even custom graphics settings on MAFIA (2002) are enough to saturate my card and get it around 20FPS. I guess you could swap cards if you need to.

AMD post Athlon64 were horrible until Ryzen. Either stick with it or switch to Intel.

Been considering upgrading to an AMD FX-60 which uses the same socket or jump to one of these:

Pointless.

- 2008 Intel i7 965 Extreme
- 2009 Intel i7 975 Extreme
- 2010 Intel i7 980x Extreme

Core i7 has shared L2 cache so 980X is better (more cache). But you can skip this stuff completely and go for Core i7 2500K/2600K.

AMD post Athlon64 were horrible until Ryzen.

Phenom II is quite nice.

hwh wrote on 2020-01-11, 01:21:

My personal experience is it doesn't matter how many "cores" there are if there's more than 1. Most software will ignore it, whi […]
Show full quote

My personal experience is it doesn't matter how many "cores" there are if there's more than 1. Most software will ignore it, which makes single processor performance more significant. Obviously you know some software throws a fit, which is sometimes resolved by setting affinity, other times more drastic measures are needed.

But I've never heard of software that doesn't mind 2 processors but freaks out about 4. I would pay close attention to single core performance, and also consider what you're running to determine what the best choice is.

Graphics, I personally selected a GTX 460 price/performance in 2010. Compatibility is not perfect, notably the NTVDM colors and fonts are messed up, but it's become the norm to use DOSbox for it anyway, and the remaining issues I know of (like Splinter Cell) only seem to work on a much older card like my Radeon 9700 PRO. Don't even get me started on Anachronox.

I checked and the 285 is a lot slower and somehow uses more power than the card I have:
https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare/Ge … TX-460/1444vs31

Does depend on what you're doing, but that card will struggle with some higher settings on stuff closer to 2010 than 1999. I know because my card has limits. I can pretty much run what I like, but there's not a lot of headroom; the newer games I have played like Gothic 3 (2006) will bring you to a halt, even custom graphics settings on MAFIA (2002) are enough to saturate my card and get it around 20FPS. I guess you could swap cards if you need to.

Hwcompare is a poor resource the GTX 460 is slower than a 285, a 460 sits just below a 275 in performance. Anything that won't run on newer than XP a 285 can Max out handily,it was able to run oblivion at 2560x1600 at ultra as well as crysis at 1080p dx10 ultra and maintain above 45fps.

candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 15:21:

Hwcompare is a poor resource the GTX 460 is slower than a 285, a 460 sits just below a 275 in performance. Anything that won't run on newer than XP a 285 can Max out handily,it was able to run oblivion at 2560x1600 at ultra as well as crysis at 1080p dx10 ultra and maintain above 45fps.

Why? What should you use?

hwh wrote on 2020-01-14, 04:15:

candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 15:21:

Hwcompare is a poor resource the GTX 460 is slower than a 285, a 460 sits just below a 275 in performance. Anything that won't run on newer than XP a 285 can Max out handily,it was able to run oblivion at 2560x1600 at ultra as well as crysis at 1080p dx10 ultra and maintain above 45fps.

Why? What should you use?

the cards are neck and neck in terms of performance on paper but i'm sure the 460 has benefits like size and power consumption (maybe some other effiency boosts too). they both have the same amount of ram, roughly same clock speeds. the 285 has a bigger mem bus but the 460 has gddr5 and the 285 has gddr3 so that balances out.

hwh wrote on 2020-01-14, 04:15:

candle_86 wrote on 2020-01-11, 15:21:

Hwcompare is a poor resource the GTX 460 is slower than a 285, a 460 sits just below a 275 in performance. Anything that won't run on newer than XP a 285 can Max out handily,it was able to run oblivion at 2560x1600 at ultra as well as crysis at 1080p dx10 ultra and maintain above 45fps.

Why? What should you use?

Old reviews. The hardware comparison websites are all useless at best.

here is an old anandtech review of the GTX 460 that includes the GTX 285 in the comparisons that aren't DX11.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-g … 60-the-200-king

the 460 and 285 are in spitting distance of each other in most cases with a few outliers like mass effect 2 where the 285 trounces the 460.

The problem with the hardware comparison websites is that they largely just use values like clockspeed core configuration, shader count and stuff like that, that outside of the context of the specific architecture is useless. The result is a ranking that is rather random and any ranks that correspond to reality accurately are coincidental at best.

For Windows XP support build I'd chosen Intel i7 2xxx with PCI motherboard. As this besides good compatibility also covers later games of 2010-... years (until PS5 generation).

Videocards with good XP games compatibility should be until GTX 5xx .
Taking DX11 games, you may prefer 9xx as the last with official XP drivers. There should be drivers for 10xx but those are unofficial and you'll be more limited to what driver's version to use in case of compatibility issues. Also for 10xx you'll need additional device as HDMI->VGA convertor for CRT support (this support can be useful for early XP games) what hypothetically may rise delays and add other problems. With lower prices than today, 10xx as the hardware for additional retro PC may become more interesting.

Koltoroc wrote on 2020-01-14, 13:46:

The hardware comparison websites are all useless at best. here is an old anandtech review of the GTX 460 that includes the GTX 2 […]
Show full quote

The hardware comparison websites are all useless at best.
here is an old anandtech review of the GTX 460 that includes the GTX 285 in the comparisons that aren't DX11.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-g … 60-the-200-king
the 460 and 285 are in spitting distance of each other in most cases with a few outliers like mass effect 2 where the 285 trounces the 460.

Techpowerup ranking shows GTX 460 256 bit similar to GTX 275-285 cards.