WinXP Drivers for GTX 9xx and 10xx video cards

[Dixel]

14 hours ago, UCyborg said:

I checked with GPU-Z 2.36.0, it switches between 1.1 and 2.0 modes, depending on the load.

I rarely play games these days, last DX9 game I played a while ago was Prototype and it definitely played smoother on my Windows 10 install than on XP. The difference is significant that no FPS meters and such were needed to detect the difference. Surely the driver on 10 install is newer (in 430.xx range), but I haven't noticed any speed difference with the older 368.81 in games in general on Win7 and later systems.

I remember when DOOM (2016) came out and it was unplayable on the 368.81 driver, so couldn't stay on that version forever.

Anyway, back to XP, there is another game that feels as smooth as should be on both XP and 10; Wolfenstein: The New Order, though this one uses OpenGL.

Wolfenstein: The New Order has rather simple demands . The recommended graphics: AMD Radeon HD 6850 or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 with VRAM 1GB , so there's no way it can saturate PCI-e 3.0 or even 2.0. I'm guessing this is the reason it feels smooth on XP.

OK ,  GPU-Z shows , but nVidia CPL not , why ? Seems quite strange , the same result with several different people on absolutely different hardware. Yet again , if I reboot to Vista the CPL will show the highest version of PCI-e. This is on the same drivers version . I've tested with almost all known drivers . By the way , 368.81 is the weakest among them , asdf2345 uses 347.25 for his XP and it's the wise choice , I would also recommend 347.09 and 344.60 for 900-series.

But yet again , you've just confirmed my discoveries .

XP is slower even with DX9 games.

Why do I need this ? It's just out of curiosity , I've never used XP and decided to try it. I went from Windows 2000 to Vista in 2007 (skipped XP completely). 

[asdf2345]

29 minutes ago, Dixel said:

Wolfenstein: The New Order has rather simple demands . The recommended graphics: AMD Radeon HD 6850 or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 with VRAM 1GB , so there's no way it can saturate PCI-e 3.0 or even 2.0. I'm guessing this is the reason it feels smooth on XP.

OK ,  GPU-Z shows , but nVidia CPL not , why ? Seems quite strange , the same result with several different people on absolutely different hardware. Yet again , if I reboot to Vista the CPL will show the highest version of PCI-e. This is on the same drivers version . I've tested with almost all known drivers . By the way , 368.81 is the weakest among them , asdf2345 uses 347.25 for his XP and it's the wise choice , I would also recommend 347.09 and 344.60 for 900-series.

But yet again , you've just confirmed my discoveries .

XP is slower even with DX9 games.

Why do I need this ? It's just out of curiosity , I've never used XP and decided to try it. I went from Windows 2000 to Vista in 2007 (skipped XP completely). 

I don't think x16 1.1 is the limiter, a mobile 1070 at x16 1.1 usually outperforms the 980M

[Dixel]

15 hours ago, asdf2345 said:

I don't think x16 1.1 is the limiter, a mobile 1070 at x16 1.1 usually outperforms the 980M

Where did you see such config ? Anyway , I'm not familiar with modern laptops , sorry. And my notebook from 2013 already had PCI-e 2.0. 

On one of my desktops (where I test XP64 dual-boot with Vista) I can observe some games can easily reach and stay at 86% for some time on PCI-e 2.0  with Vista and GTX 980, but with XP64 it's like around 30% only. For my precise config just scroll back and replace GTX Titan with 980 . I still think that even if GPU-z detects PCI-e 2.0 with XP64 , it seems like Nvidia drivers just can't take any advantage of it on XP. Otherwise why would Nvidia CPL say "PCI-e" with XP and "PCI-e gen2.0" with Vista ? 

[UCyborg]

On 3/21/2021 at 11:05 PM, UCyborg said:

I rarely play games these days, last DX9 game I played a while ago was Prototype and it definitely played smoother on my Windows 10 install than on XP.

Figured I forgot to change maximum prerendered frames setting (1) on XP install, that would make all the settings even with 10 install. And the fact that Prototype was played with VSync enabled (on both OS, it was disabled in Wolfenstein) makes things more interesting. Obviously, just turning off VSync smooths things out. Still, no major performance differences between OS, as it should be I believe, though I can't speak for any cards in the center of this topic.

22 hours ago, Dixel said:

Otherwise why would Nvidia CPL say "PCI-e" with XP and "PCI-e gen2.0" with Vista ?

Maybe they just never exposed that information in XP branch of their software. That their cards wouldn't utilize all available bandwidth on a version of a bus that came out in 2003...that'd be even more bizarre.

Edited March 23, 2021 by UCyborg

[Dixel]

15 hours ago, UCyborg said:

Maybe they just never exposed that information in XP branch of their software. That their cards wouldn't utilize all available bandwidth on a version of a bus that came out in 2003...that'd be even more bizarre.

Got some time to test on my other system with Haswell :

Nvidia CPL still says "PCI-e" with XP and "PCI-e gen 3.0" with Vista (3.0 because this is a newer mobo).

The games still feel much slower on XP. Also , there is a terrible screen tearing when I move any folder across the screen , the same with all of the games that I try to run in windowed mode. 

Is it supposed to be like that on XP ? V-sync and tripple buffering aren't any help. The same is with Win7 when aero is turned off .

By the way , quality wise Win7 is on the same level with XP. The picture is flat and washed out . 

Games are cut off by several mm when launched in windowed mode , but this is not the case when running them on Vista.

This is my first experience with XP . I skipped XP and went from 2000 to Vista in 2007.

[UCyborg]

Windows XP doesn't have DWM, so screen tearing outside apps that request it for themselves is normal. I don't remember VSync ever being a thing for Direct3D windowed mode, but it can work for windowed OpenGL.

Your other problems are not the norm.

[Dixel]

On 3/27/2021 at 10:31 PM, UCyborg said:

Windows XP doesn't have DWM, so screen tearing outside apps that request it for themselves is normal...

Thanks for the explanation . The absence of DWM is a big downside  , that's for sure . I don't know what I did , it was so many attempts and testing procedures (trying various drivers , reinstalling again and again , etc) , but somehow I've managed to switch to "cartoonishly moving mode" instead of tearing . I do not know how to name it properly . It's like when I move a folder , it draws a new one (where I place it) , while keeping the folder in the previous position intact . In this "mode" the games that I run in windowed mode ran without any tearing , still slow , but without tearing . And now it's gone (the "mode"), after reboot . And I do not know how to get it back . Funny.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Dixel
a rookie typo

[Rod Steel]

On 3/29/2021 at 1:05 PM, Dixel said:

somehow I've managed to switch to "cartoonishly moving mode" instead of tearing . I do not know how to name it properly . It's like when I move a folder , it draws a new one (where I place it) , while keeping the folder in the previous position intact .

Emmm... Are you talking about standard old windows 90's style? Display properties -> Appearance -> Effects -> Show window contents while dragging ?

On 3/29/2021 at 1:05 PM, Dixel said:

And now it's gone (the "mode"), after reboot .

When you change interface in Display Properties as you like, in themes rename then your current theme to, for example, "my theme 2021".

[Dixel]

14 hours ago, Rod Steel said:

Emmm... Are you talking about standard old windows 90's style? Display properties -> Appearance -> Effects -> Show window contents while dragging ?

When you change interface in Display Properties as you like, in themes rename then your current theme to, for example, "my theme 2021".

1- I'm pretty familiar with 90's style , no . 

2 - I didn't change any settings at all . I think it happened after I reinstalled Nvidia drivers. And the nice bug happened when I was using RTM. I can't replicate this. Got some time to test again , I'm pretty convinced SP1 (RTM) runs faster , overall better . I can clearly see the desktop is crystal clear . SP2 looks more like Win-7 , washed out , not clean , it is still better than win-7 , of course. I think I'll have a dual boot with Vista x64 SP1 and XP64 (RTM) with GTX980/Siemens.