I really love those tyan dual socket 7 boards :p

Windows xp runs fine on pentium but windows 9x runs a little faster 😀

I wasn’t saying to run xp on pentium, you read that yourself mistakingly. But it does work. Especially 233mmx, tillamook, and the rest of socket 7 to which I usually play with.

You might be able to try a x1300 on a pentium 3 with pci. Drivers may work.

Ah, that makes better sense now.

As I was writing my reply to you, I was even thinking to myself, "Am I misreading this? This can't be right."

Hang onto your Tyan boards like they're made of gold. If you haven't seen the prices for them on eBay lately, they're priced like they're made of solid gold. If mine ever dies, there is no way I'm ever spending $300+ to replace it. DOSBox has got me covered for 99% of everything I need the Tyan for anyway, but I still prefer the real hardware. The S1563S is one of the best purchases I've made in my entire life.

Many are looking at high end cards for that, but I'd suggest a midrange card from one or two generations later.

So instead of a 9800 GTX, take a GTX 260, instead of a HD 4870, take a HD 5770, instead of a GTX 285, take a GTX 460, instead of a GTX 580, take a GTX 670 etc.
The newer midrange card will draw less power, run cooler, tend to be built smaller (since it needs less cooling), and have less time run at the limit, so it will be in better condition.

Highend cards are also more sought after, so they will take a bit of a premium. Just like with CPUs. A C2Q Q9650 or Phenom 1100T is still expensive, even today.

And let's not forget dual boot. Something like a Pentium 3 or Athlon with a Ti 4200 can run 98 SE and XP, something like a Q6600 with a 8800 GT can run XP and 7 and so on.
So I agree that there is little need for a dedicated XP system, when you set up your fleet with multi boot in mind. XP bridges a huge area of hardware, the lower end also doing fine on 9x and the higher end on later releases.

Like when going for a "latest and greatest" system with an i5-2500K and a GTX 780 Ti, which can run everything under XP maxed out will also do fine in DX 11 titles under Win 7 or even 10.

I'd argue that a late 9x/early XP system and a late XP/early 7 system would be a much better (and cheaper) choice. Unless of course a specific, period correct setup is wanted.
But in the end there is no wrong setup. If the GPU is "too strong", you can always put that performance into more eye candy. And not every game has the same requirements, some are heavier on the CPU, some on the GPU, so going with something stronger doesn't hurt, if it means having enough performance for both.

lordmogul wrote on 2024-07-28, 00:47:

QFT

<respect>

GTX 970 is fast, cheap (relatively) and energy efficient. It works fine XP with a modded INF file.

darry wrote on 2024-07-28, 03:05:

GTX 970 is fast, cheap (relatively) and energy efficient. It works fine XP with a modded INF file.

Yes, now that the prices of older GPUs have finally come back down over the past couple of years the 970 and 980 are an amazing deal for retro or even more current gaming (with realistic expectations of course).

The 970 got a lot of flack after the whole 3.25GB debacle, but it was still a phenomenal card and one of the last times you could get a card that performed so close to the top of the line card for $300 US. The fact that this series is the last with XP support *and* native VGA output makes them quite desirable in my opinion.

I use a GTX 970 in my daily driver (Debian and Windows 10 multi-boot).

It even works well enough in DXO PureRAW 4 (even if technically below minimum requirements).

Good grief.

No WinXP box needs a 970 or 980. I'm pretty sure they won't even work without some fuckery.

I send more props to lordmogul for being practical, reasonable, responsible, and legit. Their response truly answered the question re: Best WinXP Video Card across all categories and concerns.

Even with an I5-2550K, a 970 or 980 is so mismatched as to be ridiculous.

darry, Ozzuneoj, stop being silly.

The 960 is the best you can hope for under WinXP without hacks, and even that's OP stupid under ideal conditions with an I5-3570K and DDR3 RAM.

See lordmogul's post again for a reality check.

DO NOT reply to me with a Simpson's Comic-Book-Guy ackshually post...

This has all been litigated numerous times before. I'm ashamed to even be participating now.

You should be too.

KT7AGuy wrote on 2024-07-28, 05:57:

No WinXP box needs a 970 or 980.

Depends on what games you're playing and which resolution you're using. For example, I had a GTX 650 Ti in my WinXP system until last year. It struggled to keep a locked 60 FPS in Quake 4 (2005) and Prey (2006) running at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 16xAF, mostly in areas with lots of alpha transparency effects like fire and smoke. Upgraded to a GTX 970 and both games now run smooth as butter at those settings.

I'm pretty sure they won't even work without some fuckery.

Nah, there's an official WinXP driver for GTX 970 and GTX 980 cards. Works fine right out of the box. And for a GTX 980 Ti, you can get a working driver through a simple INF file edit.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-07-28, 06:29:

Depends on what games you're playing and which resolution you're using. For example, I had a GTX 650 Ti in my WinXP system until […]
Show full quote

KT7AGuy wrote on 2024-07-28, 05:57:

No WinXP box needs a 970 or 980.

Depends on what games you're playing and which resolution you're using. For example, I had a GTX 650 Ti in my WinXP system until recently. It struggled to keep a locked 60 FPS in Quake 4 (2005) and Prey (2006) running at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 16xAF, mostly in areas with lots of alpha transparency effects like fire and smoke. Upgraded to a GTX 970 and both games now run smooth as butter at those settings.

I'm pretty sure they won't even work without some fuckery.

Nah, there's an official WinXP driver for GTX 970 and GTX 980 cards. Works fine right out of the box. And for a GTX 980 Ti, you can get a working driver through a simple INF file edit.

Rather than waste KT7AGuy's time and energy by replying to him with such insanity, I will reply to you:

Yep, that all makes perfect sense. We don't all want games to run and look like they did in 20 years ago. To me, the only point of building an XP system today is running games that benefit from hardware accelerated DirectSound3D, or games that simply don't work correctly on later operating systems. Doing so at the absolute highest frame rates and graphics settings is part of the fun for me since the hardware to make it happen is cheap and available. My old 2500K (4.2Ghz) system was used with a GTX 470, then a 560Ti, then a 660, then a 970. I still have the machine (except for the 970, though I can easily get it back if I need it), and at some point soon I plan on throwing in an X-Fi and installing XP onto an SSD.

if you gonna dualboot, I say it makes more sense to dualboot 98se with XP, than XP with 7 or 10, because, most of the games you would need XP for, would be made for 4:3 aspect ratio, so then you can have one desk set up with a CRT and your harrdware for winXP and below, and another desk with your modern widescreen setup with win 7 or 10 or linux or whatever. I am saying this after using a XP + 7 dualboot build with a gtx980 for a few years and becoming displeased with having CRT and LCD both on same desk side by side in order to have both plugged into the same PC, and having to move keyboard, mouse, speakers, mic and webcam to the other monitor each time I switch OS, not to mention being limited to five 2TB hard drives and unable to upgrade to 8TB hard drives since XP doesnt support GPT

God Of Gaming wrote on 2024-07-28, 06:57:

if you gonna dualboot, I say it makes more sense to dualboot 98se with XP, than XP with 7 or 10, because, most of the games you would need XP for, would be made for 4:3 aspect ratio, so then you can have one desk set up with a CRT and your harrdware for winXP and below, and another desk with your modern widescreen setup with win 7 or 10 or linux or whatever.

Personally, I wouldn't use a CRT monitor for WinXP gaming. And this is from someone who used to game on a CRT until 2008 back then. Lots of games from the WinXP era (mostly console ports) have issues when running at more than than 60 FPS. And it's likely that you'll be using a CRT at 85 Hz or higher. Some examples of games with such issues include Star Wars: KOTOR and Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, but there are many more. Check the PC Gaming Wiki for additional details.

As for 4:3 vs. widescreen, that's easily solved. Get a decent 16:10 monitor so you can play at 1920x1200 (which many post-2006 games can use) or 1600x1200 (which most earlier WinXP titles support). Thanks to some recommendations on this forum, I now use an ASUS ProArt PA248QV which works perfectly for this purpose. It can also properly scale 4:3 resolutions over DisplayPort or HDMI, so you don't need to mess around with any driver related image scaling options. And for very old games, this monitor even handles 800x600 fairly well, since it's a clean 2x upscale on each axis to 1600x1200.

24" 1920x1200 60hz monitor is a compromise, since on the win7 side I much prefer to go with a 32" 1440p 144hz monitor, also for 4:3 pillarboxing, and also and definitely not least important, the newer winXP nvidia drivers that you would use for something like a gtx960 actually do not seem to be able to output full RGB on anything other than VGA, so you end up with gray blacks and washed out colors (oh and no gpu scaling with those either)

God Of Gaming wrote on 2024-07-28, 08:31:

the newer winXP nvidia drivers that you would use for something like a gtx960 actually do not seem to be able to output full RGB on anything other than VGA, so you end up with gray blacks and washed out colors (oh and no gpu scaling with those either)

I think the Full vs. Limited RGB issue can be solved if you set your monitor to the same level which the driver is using. The ProArt has a Black Level adjustment setting, but to be honest, I'm not sure if it does that specifically. I have seen a few other PC monitors (mostly from LG) which allow you to straight up choose between Full and Limited RGB, but it's certainly an uncommon feature.

And as mentioned above, aspect ratio scaling driver options are irrelevant on the ProArt since it can handle that on its own.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-07-28, 08:46:

God Of Gaming wrote on 2024-07-28, 08:31:

the newer winXP nvidia drivers that you would use for something like a gtx960 actually do not seem to be able to output full RGB on anything other than VGA, so you end up with gray blacks and washed out colors (oh and no gpu scaling with those either)

I think the Full vs. Limited RGB issue can be solved if you set your monitor to the same level which the driver is using. The ProArt has a Black Level adjustment setting, but to be honest, I'm not sure if it does that specifically. I have seen a few other PC monitors (mostly from LG) which allow you to straight up choose between Full and Limited RGB, but it's certainly an uncommon feature.

And as mentioned above, aspect ratio scaling driver options are irrelevant on the ProArt since it can handle that on its own.

Well, if you like it so much, I can't tell you not to do it. But for myself, I know that Id rather not limit my win7 build to a max of 98oti and 2tb hard drives and a 24" 1200p 60hz monitor when I can now build a win7 pc with a 7800x3d and 3090ti and 8tb hard drives, and of course 1440p 144hz monitor, free from needing to dualboot it with XP, and can also set up a separate retro desk with CRT and separate peripherals where I can put all my winXP and below stuff. BTW I still think CRT is best for winXP, not only it has the correct aspect ratio, CRT is also just a superior technology to LCD when it comes to things like motion clarity and of course handling of different resolutions and non-square pixels. The issue you described with games that break above 60hz, from my experience is actually above 60fps not above 60hz. Setting them up to say 100hz but 60 fps cap, both avoids their timing bugs and allows for pleasant viewing experience on CRT.

God Of Gaming wrote on 2024-07-28, 08:31:

...the newer winXP nvidia drivers that you would use for something like a gtx960 actually do not seem to be able to output full RGB on anything other than VGA, so you end up with gray blacks and washed out colors...

DVI is not affected either. The full/limited range RGB problem is HDMI/Displayport specific even in case of worst XP drivers.

God Of Gaming wrote on 2024-07-28, 09:53:

Well, if you like it so much, I can't tell you not to do it. But for myself, I know that Id rather not limit my win7 build to a max of 98oti and 2tb hard drives and a 24" 1200p 60hz monitor when I can now build a win7 pc with a 7800x3d and 3090ti and 8tb hard drives, and of course 1440p 144hz monitor, free from needing to dualboot it with XP

To clarify, I don't think my setup is particularly good for playing Win7 games. Heck, it even struggles with holding a steady 60 FPS in Tomb Raider (2013) at 1080p, not to mention more demanding titles from the later half of the 2010s. Having Win7 on that system is a convenience for me because it allows for easier maintenance, using large (> 2 TB) external USB drives, having functional USB 3.0 drivers and having access to my Steam game library (in offline mode now). Playing a few less demanding titles from the early 2010s under Win7 is just a bonus. The system is primarily targeting WinXP.

CRT is also just a superior technology to LCD when it comes to things like motion clarity and of course handling of different resolutions and non-square pixels.

You'll get no argument from me there. No LCD that's currently available can beat a CRT in those aspects, especially a high quality Trinitron model.

The issue you described with games that break above 60hz, from my experience is actually above 60fps not above 60hz. Setting them up to say 100hz but 60 fps cap, both avoids their timing bugs and allows for pleasant viewing experience on CRT.

This made me curious. How do you limit the frame rate in games under WinXP? Is there a specific tool for that? I'm aware of using Adaptive V-Sync at half refresh rate via the Nvidia drivers, but I haven't researched any third-party utilities that can do this under WinXP.

I just brought home a GTX970 from my son, who has upgraded to 4060.

I will use it in my quad core ivy for XP and Win7. If it should die eventually (my son used it heavily for several years), I can fall back on 960, which I still have here. I do have 460, 560ti and 660 in a box. The first two are louder and slower.

That dual OS machine should be fast enough for all games that won't run on new hardware any longer. Below this level, my next GPUs are a GF 4200ti and a Voodoo5 5500. That is some gap!

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-07-28, 10:23:

This made me curious. How do you limit the frame rate in games under WinXP? Is there a specific tool for that? I'm aware of using Adaptive V-Sync at half refresh rate via the Nvidia drivers, but I haven't researched any third-party utilities that can do this under WinXP.

Same way you do on 7 and 10 - rivatuner statistics server (included with msi afterburner) has an option to cap framerate, and even to set per-game profiles with different caps. It is everyone's preferred way to set framerate caps as it does it better than the nvidia/amd drivers cap options do. Not sure if latest afterburner 4.6.5 ver will work on XP, but the one before 4.6.4 definitely does. Minor incovnenience is it hangs when you try to shut down / reboot the PC so you have to kill it manually, but I can live with that. Probably an older version wont even do that but I havent yet tried all versions to see if there is anything better

Before I withdrawn (December 2019) my FX-8350 with Asus Crosshair V and 980 Ti build, I added Audigy Rx and freshly installed Windows XP Pro SP3. Tested some XP era games with no issues at all.
Made some tests and I think it was very fast, especially in Crysis. I reduced memory to 4 GB's of RAM.
The only negative was that the Coolermaster HAF X is a very big case. I never opened it again since then.