Windows XP Gaming PC with i5 3570K & GTX 560 Ti
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 11. 2023
- 🔥This is my third try, yeah, my third try in creating an amazing and uselessly powerful Windows XP PC!
✅ Components
→ Asus P8Z77-V LX2
→ Intel i5 3570K
→ 8 GB DDR3
→ MSI GTX 560 Ti Twin Frozr III
#retro #computer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
🎧Discord: / discord
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Věda a technologie
Amazing video as usual, keep up the great work.
Thanks :)
Dude this was my dream pc back in the day 😍😍
Hehe...the CPU was amazing.
That Arctic Twin Turbo cooler shown briefly in the video is amazing. Do not throw it away!
I put one of these on my GTX 970, removed the fan shroud (as the fans were broken) and installed two silent 120mm case fans on the cooler using zip ties. It's inaudible now and temps are better than stock.
I'm not throwing anything away, I try to repurpose stuff, get them repaired, and if not, use them as props.
awsome build for xp my friend!
Yes, indeed, thanks!
Keep up with the good quality of your videos and humor 😊
Thank you, I'm trying :)
Great video, I love your builds! Did you find any advantage of using a gtx 560ti compared to your pevious gtx 960 xp build?
Very similar to my unnecessary powerfull WinXP/7 Machine, a AsRock Z77 Extreme 4, i7 3770k and a HD7970 with a HD5850 in stand-by in case some game go nuts. Keep doing this great job
AsRock Z77 Extreme 4, amazing motherboard, I had this mobo back then, with an i3 and a GTX 560 Ti :)
Omg i had the same MB and CPU with a HD7970^^ Super nostalgic
HD7970...nice! That baby can still rock Windows XP :)
As soon as I replace the hardware in my current main system, it's 3570K will become part of a new retro setup. And it get's the GTX 660 Ti that I paired it with back in 2013.
Sadly it isn't a great clocker, couldn't get it above 4.3 GHz, but it should do fine for XP.
And wow, I think I have the same GeiL memory. DDR3-1600 CL9, but I got it stable on DDR3-2000 CL12
The Hellgate London result shows pretty much why presets are great for benchmark comparisons, but not for actual play. Taking just a few settings one step down vastly improves performance at barely noticeable drop in quality.
Overall a great system that probably could even benefit from a faster graphics card. Games where the GPU is the limit will run better, and games where the CPU is limiting allow for upping the eye candy at basically no performance drop.
3570 with 660 Ti is an amazing pairing, BUT, I'm going to change this 560 Ti that I have with a Radeon HD 6950, because with Nvidia I can't use 120 Hz in Windows XP.
I think this is my favorite video so far. This system is overkill. I would love to see you test the Battlefield series up until BC2 from 2010. Pretty please?
Wow, thanks...and this surely has nothing to do with some specific reasons, regarding some of the components, let's say, right?
I don't have any BF game :)
You know that 4th gen runs like a charm on Windows XP (although Haswell is not oficially suported) ? So I think the 3rd gen I5 is not the fastest I5 Xp Gaming CPU🙂. Anyway, very nice system and a very nice video! It's such a shame that the HD7950 is dead. I have one installed in one of my XP machines and I was very surprised to find out that it's able to run Doom 2016 with decent details and excellent FPS.
There are 4th gen motherboards that work with XP, but it's hit or miss.
Also, shhhh, don't tell anyone :))
I will try to get the HD 7950 fixed, because I have too many Nvidia systems, Radeon needs some love too!
Sadly, 4th gen is only marginally faster and won't clock much higher than 3rd gen.
For good temps at high clocks 2nd gen is probably the choice. 4.5 GHz were almost guaranteed and quite a few also did 5.0 GHz, at that clock it will run faster than a 3rd or 4th gen at 4.4-4.6 GHz
On the other hand, there is the Haswell-based Pentium G3258, which also comes with an open multi, and I've seen those do 4.7 GHz.
There shouldn't be many XP games that need more than 2 cores and don't run on 7, so that might be the fastest chip for XP-only gaming.
And with 7 and some manual work you can even get it to run on 13th gen. (and a RTX 3090 Ti, which has official driver support)
Hey I was thinking of doing this but my case is micro atx any suggestions for a motherboard? By the way keep up the good work!
There are a lot of older micro-atx motherboard, just search for "micro-atx motherboard socket...", whatever socket you want.
I did a similar build with a 3570k and rx 470 in a atx modified powermac g5 case. I kinda want to get a xeon processor just for the heck of it lol. I actually put win 10 on it though. Funny enough my XP and Vista machines are actually imacs. They both have C2D and the mobile 8800 gs, i believe its 64 shader cores active or something, so bascially half a 8800 gtx. Its actually amazingly easy to just pull those out and play games for an hour or two with those machines.
I've never used Windows on the Core2 macs, but I would love to have an iMac! Do you have any issues with Windows XP gaming on your iMac?
My current XP rig:
Biostar Hi-Fi H61S3
i5-3570k cooled by Noctua NH-U9S (stock speed)
2x4GB Crucial Ballistix Sport 1600 low-profile
2TB SATA SSD (partitioned in half for
XP and Linux Mint)
Sony Blue Ray burner
5.25" Bay Drawer
3.5" Manhattan multipanel with USB3
3.5" Ultra rheostat 4x fan controller
EVGA GTX 960 2GB
Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium
USB3 PCIe x1 expansion card
Housed in Cooler Master Elite 341,
equipped with a pink LED fan in front
for esthetic, 2 Noctua NF-A12x25 FLX
on side for intake and a third on back
for exhaust
Inline ethernet kill switch so I don't
have to disconnect the cable when I
boot into Windows
Powered by EVGA 550 B5
Windows XP "Integral Edition"
Linux Mint 21.1
Runs literally everything in XP at over 100 FPS (except games with internal cap) on my 900P monitor.
Wow, you have the LG F900P? Nicee...also, the system is top notch, I'm jealous!
@@MidnightGeek99 oh, it IS an LG, I confused it with my old 98se cd-rw burner. I'm not sure what it's model number is, but it handles the big 128gb or 256gb dual-layer bd-roms (I forget which is biggest but I remember it was the biggest when I looked it up a while back).
My Windows XP PC is Intel i7 2600, 8 GB DDR3, Geforce GT 640 2Gab DDR3, 256GB SSD, Creative Sound Blaster 5.1.
Amazing PC, the GT 640 is a nice card, and I bet it's not noisy at all :)
In my experience, whilst the GTX 560 Ti is obviously a lot more powerful than the GTX 275, the latter will offer fewer issues with older games. My XP build has a Core 2 Duo e8600 overclocked to 4.0GHz and a 1GB GTX 285. When a game will benefit from more power, I install it on a Windows 7 machine with a Core i5 3570k @ 4.2GHz with a GTX 970 which I have found to be a fairly potent combo (although I think I can get away with a GTX 760 just as easily as we hit bottlenecks for the GTX 970)
Nice, just found a core 2 duo e8600 today in the junkyard out of a socket 775 machine.
Asus p5q motherboard with no ram, hd 4870 (think it was a zalman cooler on it, the vf1000 but not anodized in copper & not colored all black like the vf1050 is on the 9800 gt i found before there.)
Didn't check if it was 1 gb or 512 mb vram though as i do have more powerful cards sitting around.
Both a 9800 gt 1 gb, 9800 gtx+ 512 mb & HD 5770 which aren't far off the release of the 4870 as well as a gtx 750 ti 2 gb & a pair of gtx 970s, & my old hd 6870 with a xigmatek battleaxe cooler on it.
As for the e8600 I'm gonna give it a try overclocking it in my Asus p5q premium later this month which already pushed the current e8400 too 4 ghz with my 2x4 gb 1066 mhz ram so hopefully I'll get it to post at 4.3 ghz.
Though probably not this weekend as I'm gonna work on upgrading my dads system a bit with one of the gtx 970's, 16 gb ram in 4x4 gb configuration & a pair of old sata ssd's, 1x 180 gb & 1x 128 gb.
Both ssd's are from the junkyard out of discarded laptops from 8 - 10 years ago but they have 80 - 85% health so should be solid still for a few years.
Cpu in my dads pc is a phenom II x6 1090T at 3.5 ghz just too keep power usage down a bit, still need to tweak ht or northbridge link speed as i think either of those are connected too the L3 cache which ofc that speeding up helps with 0.1% lows.
I've also had an XP build with an GTX 960...and yeah, some games had issues, but for now the GTX 560 runs fine.
The good thing is that there is a lot of flexibility in that era.
XP was around for ages, and thus has support for lots of hardware. And the hardware has lots of headroom if you want to overclock. And overclocking was both more frustrating and more fun at the time. There was more things to keep in mind, but there was also much more to tweak.
Things like northbridge speed, tRD/performance level on DDR2, high memory speed vs low memory latencies, memory dividers, FSB vs CPU speed, on AMD northbridge and HT clocks, etc.
That E8600 + P5Q + HD 4870 combo actually sounds great for a period correct system ca 2008-2010, sure 1st gen Core i was around, but in many cases not much faster than Core 2 chips, so many people just skipped and went with SandyBridge and it's immense IPC gain in 2011 instead.
I almost have the same hardware around (E8400 that can do 4.2 GHz, Gigabyte P35-DS3R, HD 4870) and plan on doing something with it in the near future. My current setup for that period is a Xeon X5460 on 4.1 GHz and a GTX 660 Ti.
The limiting factor will be how high you can get the FSB on the board and what the memory will do, but with DDR2-1066 it should be fine up to 533 FSB, which is enough to get a E8600 to 5.3 GHz, which isn't feasable without liquid nitrogen. So the memory will run, no matter what you do.
4.3 GHz can mean 10x 430, which means DDR2-860 on a 1:1 memory divider, which then might allow to lower latencies. Or DDR2-1033 on a 6:5 divider or 1075 on a 5:4 divider.
Or 8x 538 for DDR2-1076 on a 1:1 divider. (But not many boards can go that high, even good ones)
Or 9x 478 which can give DDR2-956 on a 1:1 divider, which isn't too crazy in terms of FSB on a good board (I tested mine succesfully up to 473 FSB)
Another option would be to settle with 9x 445 which can run the memory on 1068 and gives almost flat 4 GHz, or with 9.5 you'll get 4.275 GHz, which also sounds nice.
The least hassle would probably be 10x 400, for exactly 4 GHz and DDR2-1066 with a 4:3 divider.
And 4.0 GHz is already quite an OC and might require 1.4 v, which is a lot and will need good cooling.
All that tech ramble pretty much shows how much there is to look out for, but once you get into it, it can be quite fun.
Salut, de unde gasesti toate piesele pentru pc-urile cu windows xp, vreau si eu sa imi fac un pc asemanator.
OLX :)
De ce vrei sa iti faci PC cu XP, vrei sa te joci, sau pur si simplu vrei sa faci un build? In functie de raspuns, am diferite recomandari.
@@MidnightGeek99 pentru jocuri mai ales si pentru nostalgie
Seems like fear really only likes 1 cpu and a little bit of a 2nd one. I would have expected better..
czcams.com/video/NFAF_f9HQXM/video.html
I've made some tests in the past, this video, minute 7:22.
Here I am with a uselessly weak Vista PC - that goes to the other extreme with 98SE (Celeron 500 and Savage4 are just more compatible with DX6 and my families OG DOS games).
I think that the Savage4 is a sometimes underrated card. It's great in DOS and can push out some nice 3D at times
@@achaycock It really is. The Metal API is fantastic, 32bit colours only lose you 10% performance at most (some games it is as fast as a TNT2 in 32bit) and it mostly outperforms a TNT. Some such as my example have issues with Vesa Bios Extensions. Duke3D must be run in standard mode. Mechwarrior 4 is even playable at minimum settings.
Celeron 500...does it hurt? :)
@@MidnightGeek99 I've found it to be really good (the Athlon XP 3000+ build is uselessly weak under Vista). In most of my games it runs as fast if not faster than my Celeron "450" (300A with contact B21 cut), and the Savage4 actually barely scales with CPU faster than 450MHz (reviews from its release and from my own experience with a PIII 650) - so a perfect pairing.
Anything that'd run truly bad on it, typically is a DirectX 8.1 or 9 game anyway, so I just use either of my Socket A PC to run them under Win ME or XP (Vista for "fun with no EAX").
Plus bizarrely, it and my Pentium II 233 (or 350 at 233) are the only CPU I have which can run the first PC game anyone in my family bought - Pharoh's Tomb. Everything in between or faster ends up with a "divide error".
Why would you infect your pc with vista, it does nothing that other operating systems cant do, unless your into bugs.
Because Vista is cool, and also, I can play DirectX 10 games.
@@MidnightGeek99 There is a patch to get directx 10 and 11 for winxp. But you can just run it on modern pcs without visual problems. No need for Vista in any way.
Vista SP2 is very similar to Windows 7, and perfectly usable. People who hate on Vista today are typically very clueless about the transition from NT5 to NT6, and why it had plenty of teething issues back in the day.
Also, the patch to get DX10 on XP is garbage. It was a half-baked solution to an old problem that doesn't even exist anymore. If you want a retro machine with DX10/11, use Vista or 7.
@@looks-suspicious Thats what i said, vista does nothing what other os doesn't. No one ever said he or she couldnt do stuff as they need vista. 7 does what vista does but better. Besides that win 10 also does what 7 does without visual bugs.
Sure, 7 does everything that Vista does. But that's only part of what you said, because you also compared Vista to a virus and claimed that it's full of bugs, and that's what got you my response. And I'm with Geek on this one - Vista is kinda cool, and it has a unique look to it. @@mealot7613