Skyscraper wrote:

I have argued before that the Geforce GTX 285 is the optimal Nvidia Windows XP video card. This is in combination with a really fast dual core CPU for playing games from year 2001 to 2009 or so

RatCatcher wrote:

A GTX 285 is perfect for DX8/9. Since XP doesn't have DX10 support. Better to find one new, because they run hot. Solder breaks down on high hour cards.

This is exactly why I started this thread.

I was thinking like Skyscraper that the GTX 285 was probably the ideal card for a WinXP system, but I was concerned that it was gonna be one of those that would take me on a "baking adventure", as agent_x007 so eloquently put it.

I've already got a 560 Ti and it also seems like a very good choice, so I'll keep that and use it until it dies. However, the 750 Ti seems even better: slightly more powerful, uses less power, smaller physical profile, no "baking adventures". After Phil mentioned the 950 Ti, I looked that up and it seems like it may be even better than the 750 Ti for a WinXP system. However, it does use more power and the card is physically much larger than a 750 Ti. I'm also concerned about the availability of older drivers, should compatibility problems arise. So, while the 950 Ti offers a much more powerful solution for WinXP, the 750 Ti might be the best compromise.

My XP system will be a X58 setup with a 780ti. Going for Nvidia to get PhysX support and other effects in games (shadows in TimeShift). Soundblaster X-fi for hardware audio. That will have plenty of power to dual boot Windows 7 as well

KT7AGuy wrote:

This is exactly why I started this thread. […]
Show full quote

Skyscraper wrote:

I have argued before that the Geforce GTX 285 is the optimal Nvidia Windows XP video card. This is in combination with a really fast dual core CPU for playing games from year 2001 to 2009 or so

RatCatcher wrote:

A GTX 285 is perfect for DX8/9. Since XP doesn't have DX10 support. Better to find one new, because they run hot. Solder breaks down on high hour cards.

This is exactly why I started this thread.

I was thinking like Skyscraper that the GTX 285 was probably the ideal card for a WinXP system, but I was concerned that it was gonna be one of those that would take me on a "baking adventure", as agent_x007 so eloquently put it.

I've already got a 560 Ti and it also seems like a very good choice, so I'll keep that and use it until it dies. However, the 750 Ti seems even better: slightly more powerful, uses less power, smaller physical profile, no "baking adventures". After Phil mentioned the 950 Ti, I looked that up and it seems like it may be even better than the 750 Ti for a WinXP system. However, it does use more power and the card is physically much larger than a 750 Ti. I'm also concerned about the availability of older drivers, should compatibility problems arise. So, while the 950 Ti offers a much more powerful solution for WinXP, the 750 Ti might be the best compromise.

I own quite a few GTX 285 cards, none of them runs very hot. I do often adjust the fan curve though as I prerfer the cards to run really cool as long as they dont sound like dustbusters. Even with the stock fan curve these cards should not ever go over 90C, if they do the TIM probably needs replacing and the coolers needs to be cleaned.

Compared to the 8800 GTX, GTX 280 and GTX 480 the GTX 285 seems to hold together much better, I have never ran into a broken one. I agree though that the GTX 750ti or the GTX 560 ti you already own are better choices if you mostly play games that work well with newer drivers which are most DX9 games.

Skyscraper wrote:

I agree though that the GTX 750ti or the GTX 560 ti you already own are better choices if you mostly play games that work well with newer drivers which is most DX9 games.

If I was only going to have a single machine for retro-duty, then WinXP and the GTX 285 must be the best choice. I'm of the opinion that DX8 and earlier titles run better on the hardware and software they were designed for: Win98SE and either a Voodoo 3 or GeForce 4. Since I have the luxury of several Win9x machines to play with, I'll use my 560 Ti for WinXP and eventually grab a 750 Ti as well.

To everybody who replied: thank you very much for your comments, insight, and wisdom.

As time goes on and GOG.com expands its library, the allure of a Win9x retro-box decreases while nostalgia for a WinXP system increases. I hope that this thread might provide some good ideas to others who are considering refurbishing that old WinXP machine in their basements.

Thanks again 😀

KT7AGuy wrote:

If I was only going to have a single machine for retro-duty, then WinXP and the GTX 285 must be the best choice. I'm of the opi […]
Show full quote

Skyscraper wrote:

I agree though that the GTX 750ti or the GTX 560 ti you already own are better choices if you mostly play games that work well with newer drivers which is most DX9 games.

If I was only going to have a single machine for retro-duty, then WinXP and the GTX 285 must be the best choice. I'm of the opinion that DX8 and earlier titles run better on the hardware and software they were designed for: Win98SE and either a Voodoo 3 or GeForce 4. Since I have the luxury of several Win9x machines to play with, I'll use my 560 Ti for WinXP and eventually grab a 750 Ti as well.

To everybody who replied: thank you very much for your comments, insight, and wisdom.

As time goes on and GOG.com expands its library, the allure of a Win9x retro-box decreases while nostalgia for a WinXP system increases. I hope that this thread might provide some good ideas to others who are considering refurbishing that old WinXP machine in their basements.

Thanks again 😀

DX8 was designed for XP and back ported to 9x remember? So honestly DX8 titles where meant to be played on XP 😁

candle_86 wrote:

DX8 was designed for XP and back ported to 9x remember? So honestly DX8 titles where meant to be played on XP 😁

I had to look it up. According to Wikipedia, DX8 came out first for Win9x on November 12th, 2000. DX8.1 was released on October 25th, 2001 and was the version used for WinXP and SP1. Still, I always assumed that DX9 was included with WinXP. I didn't start using WinXP until sometime in 2005 with SP2, so that's probably why I never noticed.

That's a nice bit of trivia there! Thanks! 😀

I run a 1gb 9800 gtx+ OC in my XP machine. It's a beast of a card for its time. I always see the gtx 285 being recommend but would I see any performance benefit?

KT7AGuy wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

As time goes on and GOG.com expands its library, the allure of a Win9x retro-box decreases while nostalgia for a WinXP system increases. 😀

I dont think so Windows 98 will always be the number 1 choice of retro O/S. there is still heaps of people building DOS machines. To be honest i dont really see a point in having a dedicated Windows XP gaming machine. if it runs on XP most likely it will run on newer O/S, and especially with GOG.com re-releasing old games with all the tweaks.

Lets not go off-topic into a discussion about which OS we prefer. Thanks.

Well, as far as I know, Windows XP still supports modern graphics cards, so for example you could use a GTX 9xx as fine as using it on 7 or 10.

Although I haven't tried this personally (I have a GTX 970 in my main Windows 7 PC), I know that nVidia drivers are compatible with XP, or at least they were with my previous GPU (GTX 470, which is still quite good for an almost retro OS such XP).

As for AMD (ATI), I'm not very updated, since I don't currently have any modern AMD GPU (I'm sticking with nVidia until AMD doesn't make its own PhysX support...), perhaps someone else can give further info.

I personally used my GTX 470 on Windows XP back in 2010, before moving on 7.

There is so much to this topic, great discussion and everyone will end up with a different answer, which is great 🤣

Regarding numbers, I see way more people that grew up (had their "retro" time) during the Windows XP period. XP was around for a very long time, so the numbers might be massive.

However, the vast majority of "XP" games work just fine under Windows 10. But nostalgia is powerful force, so I also agree that building XP gaming machines will become quite popular in the near future.

As for graphics cards, for most games it shouldn't matter if you go with a newer model, but sometimes newer drivers break an old game. In that case you're better off with an older card because of access to older drivers. With a newer card your game could be broken, even with the launch release driver.

Elia1995 wrote:

Well, as far as I know, Windows XP still supports modern graphics cards, so for example you could use a GTX 9xx as fine as using […]
Show full quote

Well, as far as I know, Windows XP still supports modern graphics cards, so for example you could use a GTX 9xx as fine as using it on 7 or 10.

Although I haven't tried this personally (I have a GTX 970 in my main Windows 7 PC), I know that nVidia drivers are compatible with XP, or at least they were with my previous GPU (GTX 470, which is still quite good for an almost retro OS such XP).

As for AMD (ATI), I'm not very updated, since I don't currently have any modern AMD GPU (I'm sticking with nVidia until AMD doesn't make its own PhysX support...), perhaps someone else can give further info.

I personally used my GTX 470 on Windows XP back in 2010, before moving on 7.

In my research, the latest gen of cards (GTX 10xx and RX 4xx cards) are dropping XP support in their drivers. Don't know if they've been or will be modded to work. Your GTX 970 may be worth holding on to if you care about XP.

RetroBoogie wrote:

Elia1995 wrote:

Well, as far as I know, Windows XP still supports modern graphics cards, so for example you could use a GTX 9xx as fine as using […]
Show full quote

Well, as far as I know, Windows XP still supports modern graphics cards, so for example you could use a GTX 9xx as fine as using it on 7 or 10.

Although I haven't tried this personally (I have a GTX 970 in my main Windows 7 PC), I know that nVidia drivers are compatible with XP, or at least they were with my previous GPU (GTX 470, which is still quite good for an almost retro OS such XP).

As for AMD (ATI), I'm not very updated, since I don't currently have any modern AMD GPU (I'm sticking with nVidia until AMD doesn't make its own PhysX support...), perhaps someone else can give further info.

I personally used my GTX 470 on Windows XP back in 2010, before moving on 7.

In my research, the latest gen of cards (GTX 10xx and RX 4xx cards) are dropping XP support in their drivers. Don't know if they've been or will be modded to work. Your GTX 970 may be worth holding on to if you care about XP.

nVidia dropped XP support on the high end Maxwell GPUs (GTX 970/980/980Ti and TITAN X) leaving only the lower end models with XP Support (750/750ti/950/960), with Pascal the story changes, XP support is completely dropped and they dropped support for Windows Vista too

AMD already dropped XP support in most of the Rx 200 series and no longer supported on the Rx 300 series.

About hardware plataform, Intel officially supported XP up to Intel 7 series chipsets (B75/H77/Z77) and x79, AMD supported XP on all AM3+ systems and APU models up to 6000 series (Richland)

I hope they won't drop Windows 7 support any soon... I'm not ready to upgrade to Windows 8.1 or 10, as much as the curiosity grows, I already tried both of them (10 only on virtual machine) and I'm completely disappointed by the new explorer and overall compatibility.
Windows 10 doesn't even support USB floppy drives, I hope there'll be some third-party drivers that will make them work on 10.

Currently I'm using my old GTX 470 on Windows XP without problems, still a nice card... extremely noisy, but still good for XP.

Elia1995 wrote:

Windows 10 doesn't even support USB floppy drives

Works fine on my machine 😀

ah well, then what I read must've been b/s, but whatever...

I still can't figure out how to change the user name in Windows 10 after installation and the virtual machine is stuck with "Administrator" 🙁

Elia1995 wrote:

I hope they won't drop Windows 7 support any soon... I'm not ready to upgrade to Windows 8.1 or 10, as much as the curiosity grows, I already tried both of them (10 only on virtual machine) and I'm completely disappointed by the new explorer and overall compatibility.
Windows 10 doesn't even support USB floppy drives, I hope there'll be some third-party drivers that will make them work on 10.

Currently I'm using my old GTX 470 on Windows XP without problems, still a nice card... extremely noisy, but still good for XP.

About PhysX... forget AMD, is not going to happen since PhysX is a propietary technology by nvidia

Intel and Microsoft confirmed Skylake will be the last plataform supporting Windows 7 and 8.1. Floppy Drives worked for me on Windows 10, but i only tested internal drives, i still need to try a 5.25 drive on Windows 10. AMD might or might no provide drivers for OSes earlier than 10

Idk about AMD Radeon and nVidia Geforce since they just dropped Windows Vista support few months ago (nvidia pascal dropped support for Vista)

I tried benching my main desktop (i5 2500K, GTX660) and the laptop (i7-5500U) and both PCs benched higher with 7 over 10 or 8.1, 8.1 gave the worst results for me

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Elia1995 wrote:

Windows 10 doesn't even support USB floppy drives

Works fine on my machine 😀

I have no problem with mine either.

I can say after using LOTS of video cards in XP that the best combination of performance and compatibility for me has been the GTX 285.

Runs cooler and faster than GTX 280, doesn't have SLI incompatibilities with some games like the GTX 295, good driver support, etc.

It also seems that Nvidia has the leadless solder issue figured out on these cards, unlike the 8800GTX series.

The GTX 285 is an awesome card. It's just very big and requires two 6 pin plugs. I'm using a 9800 GTX at the moment and it's working well so far.