Standard Def Steve wrote:

I'll admit, I had a dedicated XP gaming box not too long ago, an overclocked dual-core Opteron with a GTX 260 SP216 and X-Fi Ti. I still have the machine, but it's no longer used for DX9c gaming. I now play all of those games on my main computer. It's far from period correct, but having my entire library of DX9-11 games on one machine is just so convenient. DX9C games are new enough to run without any problems on Win7+, and the performance is just insane. We're talking triple digit frame rates with everything completely maxed out--performance several times higher than what was possible with my dedicated XP box. And the breakneck speed of a modern CPU really helps to shorten load times.

I just don't see the point of building a dedicated, offline XP machine. Unless hardware accelerated audio means that much to you. 🤣

Dont be such a downer 😜

The main reason I can think of is to keep my main system free from clutter, I have single game installed on it now and only programs I actually use. I even only run the Windows services I need to run, not a single one I can manage without. Ages ago optimizing and having a clean system was important if you wanted a speedy system, it isnt important anymore but I still do it.

These are the processes I run on my main Windows 7 system with Fixefox open (with lots of tabs), I cant be bothered to play wack a mole with the Nvidia clutter.

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Unless hardware accelerated audio means that much to you. 🤣

It does to me 🤣

And having land mass reflections in Far Cry. And FEAR not slowing down after a while and not having to disable HID devices. And many other little fixes one needs to google and apply to get XP games going under Windows 10.

But yes, MOST games work just fine.

Dedicated XP-only rig is not bad idea at all. I have one myself, as there are plenty of games that don't run well on my main win10 PC and still require decent amount of power... especially if I want maxed out AA / AF / TRAA. 😈

For inspiration:

Pentium G2130 (dual-core Ivy Bridge @ 3.2 GHz)
GeForce GTX 760
ASRock H61MV-ITX
2 GB DDR3 1066 (really old school in terms of DDR3) 🤣
Coolermaster Elite 130 ITX case

Very nice!

My take to the XP build idea was to run XP alongside W98; 2 drives/BIOS dual boot. It's true that the vast majority of Dx9 games fine on W7+, but not *all* - the first series of Strike Fighter games for instance. On the plus side these outlier DX9 games are from the early to mid XP era so somewhat lower system performance is acceptable. And this made it tempting to squeeze W98 in there - by spec'ing hardware with drivers for both XP/W9x this is what I cam up with;

BIOSTAR P4M890-M7-TE mATX; socket 775/sata150/usb2/ddr2 [compromise here is single-channel ram, 2C full ATX boards are out there tho]
Core 2 Duo 2.66ghz E6700
4gb PQI PC2-6400/533 ram
RLOWE memory patch [W98 only]
EVGA 7900GTX; 512mb/ddr3/GPU=650mhz/vRam=800mhz: XPdriver: v92.91, W98 driver: nV modded v8269
SBlive!
2 hard drives

I have fun with this rig - plenty fast for the XP games that don't run on W7, and with W98 thrown in there I can run highly upgraded/modded W98 games at very hi-res/AA/FPs without issue.

Quick update, not long winded 😉

I have played with dual booting and I just don't like it. There is really no way to build a computer that is perfect for 98 and XP or for XP and 7. At least that is how it's working for me so I decided to build a dedicated XP only machine and make it fast. I want it to be simple though, no crazy parts, no crazy configuration, no SLI, no overclocking just good solid, stable, fast performance. I guess you could call it a boring system and I'm ok with that. Yes, hardware accelerated audio is very important to me, at least for most of the games that interest me. I don't want to be constantly tinkering with the system, I want to be playing games and not worried about the game crashing because I was trying to push the system too far and making it unstable. I also don't want to be constantly looking for workarounds to play older games on newer systems. I tend to even stay away from factory overclocked cards and I do underclock cards on occasion. I guess another reason I do not want to use my 8800 GTX is that was the period when so many cards did die and I don't want a platform I don't totally trust. I am buying my spare parts now though, that's why I got 2 identical sound and video cards. They will all be tested then one set of hardware will be properly stored for long-term storage. One thing I do not see folks really talk about is power. By that I mean how do you best protect your retro systems from brown outs, surges, etc? I just got a APC 1500 that needed the batteries changed out and I was able to do that for $40.00. It will power my new XP box or whatever box I will be gaming on with retro parts. If we have a lightning storm I will shut it all down and unplug the UPS from the wall. I will probably start selling a lot of my retro stuff soon and keep what I need. One solid 98/DOS box with spare parts and one solid XP box with spare parts, possibly one other.

I like your thinking / approach to this build. We think quite alike 🤣

Wondering if I should do a build video on a Windows XP Retro Gaming PC?

Agree here too. Constantly finding and updating workarounds to get/keep older games running on the 'ever newer main machine' was the impetus to build straightforward stand alone retro boxes. Curating the menagerie of aging games on XP then W7 had become too much of a time sap. I stay away from overclocking and exotic setups for these too, since top performing retro hardware that would have bled us dry back in the day is cheap, not the delicate price/performance sacrifice you have to make with an up-to-date rig. Even better if it's lying around the house. Good fun now.

Leaning heavily towards this board at the moment.

ASUS P8H61-M LE/CSM R2.0

Socket 1155, PCIe at the top, PCI at the bottom so the graphics card can 'breathe' and the price is right. All solid caps and looks decent oh and still available new.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?It … N82E16813131860

Ok, I made an order

ASUS P8H61-M Micro-ATX
Crucial 4-GB DDR1600 (2x2-GB) Ballistix Sport (was cheap)
Seasonic 450-Watt PSU
Seagate Barracuda 1TB hard drive, SATA
ASUS DVD-RW, SATA

Already on order

NVIDIA GTX 285 video card
Creative X-Fi SB0460 sound card

Already have

I will use my Celeron G1610 CPU for now, possibly forever. At least wait for a good deal on a faster CPU

I have decided to toss this system into an extra Supermicro CSE-731i case that I probably won't use otherwise.

I am really looking at this monitor. It is 1920x1200 and also handles 4:3 aspect ration.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?It … N82E16824236331

I need a "2008" XP system for games because I don't have a super-pumped Windows XVII-DX-whatever "main system." I'm writing this on a G5 Mac and everything else I have either runs OSX, Linux, or DOS. So I built a rig out of free- or near-free stuff and now I can play whatever I want. 😎

@xjas

Nice!

My main system use to be a Core2 based system until a shotgun mishap took it out. Surprisingly I did not kill the person(s) responsible 😉 So I now have a re-purposed, low-end ThinkServer with an i3 CPU as my main box. It is currently running a free preview of Windows 10. I will probably install Windows 7 from the COA of the deceased box. Maybe I will do the free upgrade to 10.

Skyscraper, squareguy,

I've read your arguments for the GTX 285 and mostly agree. Two years ago when I purchased my 560 Ti 448 I used the exact same logic, except that I paid way more than $20 for it. Like you, I wanted a nice fast card for XP that would last a long time, not run too hot, and wouldn't make me cry when the electric bill came due.

Nowadays, the 750 Ti seems to be the best choice. It has killer performance, runs even cooler, has even lower power consumption, and is small enough to fit in tiny cases. Aside from price, it seems to be the better choice. What do you think?

(The GTX 285 is still probably the better choice strictly because you can get a used one for less than $30 on eBay.)

(The GTS 250 and GTS 450 are also decent choices, but sacrifice performance for reduced power consumption.)

One comment, and I should have mentioned this earlier, is that X-Fi cards came out later in PCIe version. IMO they are less troublesome than PCI cards. There are reports of PCI cards popping whereas PCIe do not. I don't know because I always went PCIe, got two X-Fi Titanium PCIe cards 😀

One argument for the GTX285, and other older cards, is that you can use older drivers. This is something that you often can't do with new cards. Far Cry breaks with newer Nvidia drivers, but I admit I don't know how "far back" the 750 goes compared to the 285.

Apart from that the 750 Ti is one of my favorite cards. So energy efficient.

I tested GTX 750 in XP with Far Cry and it did fine but I would feel better with something that I know has the potential for much better compatibility in a lot of games.

Tesla Architecture
Older Drivers
Fast

read this thread it does a better job of explaining than I could.

Ultimate DirectX-9 Setup

Question regarding what was said earlier about Nvidia DX10 cards rendering things differently.

What about AMD?

What's a good AMD card for a Windows XP machine? HD4850/4870?

philscomputerlab wrote:

What's a good AMD card for a Windows XP machine? HD4850/4870?

I would like to know too. Personally, I haven't seen any problems with either my GTS 250 or 560 Ti cards, but I also haven't tried everything. I'm only using the HD5770 because I got it for free and it's green compared to the needs of some other cards.

I'm generally not a big fan of ATI/AMD cards. The drivers for my 9800XT and 9600XT cards did not inspire confidence or loyalty and I haven't forgotten about it. The situation regarding AGP HD3xxx and HD4xxx series cards is even worse. Perhaps this HD5770 card will change my mind a bit.

And I'd love for someone to provide an example of "DX10 cards rendering DX9 differently". That would be greatly appreciated. Just so we know what to look for.

KT7AGuy wrote:

I'm generally not a big fan of ATI/AMD cards. The drivers for my 9800XT and 9600XT cards did not inspire confidence or loyalty and I haven't forgotten about it. The situation regarding AGP HD3xxx and HD4xxx series cards is even worse. Perhaps this HD5770 card will change my mind a bit.

The drivers for my AGP HD 3850 were a little finicky to install but now that they're working it seems solid. Haven't had any issues. Granted I've only put max ~10 hours of gameplay on it so YMMV.

philscomputerlab wrote:

One comment, and I should have mentioned this earlier, is that X-Fi cards came out later in PCIe version. IMO they are less troublesome than PCI cards. There are reports of PCI cards popping whereas PCIe do not. I don't know because I always went PCIe, got two X-Fi Titanium PCIe cards 😀

Can you give me a SB part number to look at? There are so many that say titanium in their name.

EDIT:

I found this talking about the issue. Appears to possibly effect any X-Fi.

http://support.creative.com/kb/ShowArticle.aspx?sid=24669