Backported/Modded AMD Radeon Driver for Windows XP x86/x64?

[SFMG]

Hello,
I have a machine running Windows 11, Windows 7, and Manjaro Linux. and I have run into a slump where a few days ago I was going through some old junk in my attic and found some old PC games I used to play, but they're made for Windows ME, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. sadly I tried running them on my current Windows 11 and Windows 7 Partitions...... it didn't end well (Blue screen) tried NTVDM (again blue screen) tried a VM, this time I got a different message. so cause I lack money to buy a native Windows XP machine I've decided to look to the Internet to try and find some GPU drivers for my AMD Radeon RX580 8GB to use Windows XP with One Core API (OCA installed Post-Install). due to google not being very helpful I was wondering if the people of this forum would be able to tell me if it would be possible to find a modded/backported AMD Radeon Driver for the RX580 or am I screwed? these are games I played as a kid and I just wanna see if they still work, they'll install, but they wont launch/play properly (e.g. runs too fast then crashes, or pops up for a split second then closes and never ends up running) any ideas as to what I should do or anyone who can point me in the right direction?

Edited March 5 by Tripredacus

[Klemper]

From my research, no such thing.

[SFMG]

is there no way to create a driver? or backport it using any available tools?

[Vistapocalypse]

Windows 7 has Compatibility Mode for Windows XP. Have you tried that?

[SFMG]

yes and it half worked, the games either ran at 1000x speed or .10x speed so never was what i wanted so thats why I was wondering if there was a way to either mod, create, or backport the driver using whatever we have thats available? I'm not a good enough coder so thats why I was looking to see if there was already one made?

[Damnation]

@SFMG

I'd say your best option would be to get a cheap Nvidia GT 710 or 730 and run it along side your RX580 in a lower PCIE slot.

Nvidia kept XP support up to GTX 980 whereas AMD dropped support around the R7 270.

Edited March 3 by Damnation

[SFMG]

sadly I only have 1 GPU slot and 2 1x PCIe slots that are both in use so sadly I don't have any options atm.

[Damnation]

@SFMG

If you're stuck with the RX580 then you'll have to settle for a generic 2D driver in XP.

bearwindows.zcm.com.au/vbempk.zip

[SFMG]

does it have dual monitor support? and will it allow me to run what i need to? I don't care for 3D I just need it to remove the lag

[Damnation]

@SFMG

I'm not sure what your needs are, you may as well try out the driver and see if it works for you.

[SFMG]

alright thanks

[user57]

well it is actually hard to say if your problem is a driver problem

for xp we have this one that support new grafic cards:
https://msfn.org/board/topic/181454-official-driver-supporting-gtx-970-and-up-found/

your card seems to be a desktop card, there should be drivers 

---- 
in lap-tops some companys use a trick to hide the grafic card they use 
for example they use a different name for their card like instead of "gtx 970" they use "gtx 970 hps"
this make the common driver that would work not install

but you actually can add that driver into the .inf file (then the driver finds thecard)
in the driver installation you also can choose a driver that you want to install for this card 
you can force to install that driver, that also works 

but thats for lap-tops using that "trick"
-----

what games are these actually ? xp has a well balance between backwards and forwards compatibility 
that win7 + (use xp modus) is useally not working often a placebo that trys to make people think win7 can do what xp can do (for marketing like "oh win7 can do xp, buy win7, buy win10") 
(what in reality it can 99 % it can not)

to fix your problem we should take a look on the game or game(s) itself
beginning with the question what game you first wanna use 

then we should know if that games or games work in a nativ xp machine or not (xp dont have 100 % backwards compatibility either
- xp might have a lot here but not the absolution)

the "one core api" is not for old games, it actually is for new applications and games that have functions 
that xp useally dont have 
the one core api therefore is for new games, therefore it dont make sence to use one core api on a old game

if you have a dos game it might dont work, dos games often need a nativ 98 machine bootet into dos 
commander and conquer 1 (dos version) would be a such example, there are windows versions too but

----------------------------------
to the 8 GB problem i can say this

there are page table entrys (that leads to the physical ram) , those can addresse more then 8 GB 

however for example the EIP 32 bit for example can only address 4 GB 

then however that EIP - can with a different application (games are applications) address different memory - therefore having multiple applications/games/executables/processes (is always the same thing)
can theoretical address more RAM 

but here is the next problem the OS not always seems to use that (xp dont i heared, with the 128 gb ram patch it suppose to do it)

a other thing i have to point out are segments, and maybe the PDE/PTE´s

a segment is a selector for a specific amount of ram
since we have 32 bit (what are 4 gb ram) 
every segment actually could point to 4 GB ram

but applications dont use segments (what you can see with a disassembler every common app dont use segments)

these segments are in 32 bit protected mode 16 bit wide therefore 16 bits = 65535  and that times 4 GB = 65535 * 4 GB ram 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_memory_segmentation

a other problem can be the hardware lets say the CPU only got 32 wires , then the software could use more then 4 GB ram but the cpu actually can not use more then 4 GB ram

but here kick in the segment question again 

the CPU actually can translate that segment to the next segment (the first segment is 4 GB ram) - again with 65535 possibilites (4 gb * 16 bit (65535))

so the 32 bit protected mode actually has not 32 bit, the 32 bit protected mode theoretical got 48 bit (32 bit + 16 bit)

but as i said, neither 
the operating system 
the software (such as segment selectors)  (applications/games/executables/processes)
or maybe even the hardware (such as cpu wires, or even the "manufactor logic" on the chip itself) 
dont/cant do that 

what the hardware can do is translate a segment/page table entry/page directory entry  just into a next access somewhere into more of the 4 gb ram 
as said the os, software, and hardware have to do so ... (in 8 bit and 16 bit times segments where very common instead of 65kb ram (16 bit) you could then use 1mb (20 bit))

 

[SFMG]

these are like games before openGL2.0 before D3D8or9 before we had vulkan, Real Mode DOS type stuff but usually I just use it to test some old legacy stuff I become interested in doesn't need to be very fancy Minecraft would probably be the only game other than Sonic Adventure DX  that I can get running on there if there was a native driver for XP for the RX580. but since there's not I will install XP use the one driver that was posted here and see if that works. cause if it gives me dual monitor support and no screen lag perfect. if not oh well

[SFMG]

6 hours ago, user57 said:

well it is actually hard to say if your problem is a driver problem

for xp we have this one that support new grafic cards:
https://msfn.org/board/topic/181454-official-driver-supporting-gtx-970-and-up-found/

your card seems to be a desktop card, there should be drivers 

---- 
in lap-tops some companys use a trick to hide the grafic card they use 
for example they use a different name for their card like instead of "gtx 970" they use "gtx 970 hps"
this make the common driver that would work not install

but you actually can add that driver into the .inf file (then the driver finds thecard)
in the driver installation you also can choose a driver that you want to install for this card 
you can force to install that driver, that also works 

but thats for lap-tops using that "trick"
-----

what games are these actually ? xp has a well balance between backwards and forwards compatibility 
that win7 + (use xp modus) is useally not working often a placebo that trys to make people think win7 can do what xp can do (for marketing like "oh win7 can do xp, buy win7, buy win10") 
(what in reality it can 99 % it can not)

to fix your problem we should take a look on the game or game(s) itself
beginning with the question what game you first wanna use 

then we should know if that games or games work in a nativ xp machine or not (xp dont have 100 % backwards compatibility either
- xp might have a lot here but not the absolution)

the "one core api" is not for old games, it actually is for new applications and games that have functions 
that xp useally dont have 
the one core api therefore is for new games, therefore it dont make sence to use one core api on a old game

if you have a dos game it might dont work, dos games often need a nativ 98 machine bootet into dos 
commander and conquer 1 (dos version) would be a such example, there are windows versions too but

----------------------------------
to the 8 GB problem i can say this

there are page table entrys (that leads to the physical ram) , those can addresse more then 8 GB 

however for example the EIP 32 bit for example can only address 4 GB 

then however that EIP - can with a different application (games are applications) address different memory - therefore having multiple applications/games/executables/processes (is always the same thing)
can theoretical address more RAM 

but here is the next problem the OS not always seems to use that (xp dont i heared, with the 128 gb ram patch it suppose to do it)

a other thing i have to point out are segments, and maybe the PDE/PTE´s

a segment is a selector for a specific amount of ram
since we have 32 bit (what are 4 gb ram) 
every segment actually could point to 4 GB ram

but applications dont use segments (what you can see with a disassembler every common app dont use segments)

these segments are in 32 bit protected mode 16 bit wide therefore 16 bits = 65535  and that times 4 GB = 65535 * 4 GB ram 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_memory_segmentation

a other problem can be the hardware lets say the CPU only got 32 wires , then the software could use more then 4 GB ram but the cpu actually can not use more then 4 GB ram

but here kick in the segment question again 

the CPU actually can translate that segment to the next segment (the first segment is 4 GB ram) - again with 65535 possibilites (4 gb * 16 bit (65535))

so the 32 bit protected mode actually has not 32 bit, the 32 bit protected mode theoretical got 48 bit (32 bit + 16 bit)

but as i said, neither 
the operating system 
the software (such as segment selectors)  (applications/games/executables/processes)
or maybe even the hardware (such as cpu wires, or even the "manufactor logic" on the chip itself) 
dont/cant do that 

what the hardware can do is translate a segment/page table entry/page directory entry  just into a next access somewhere into more of the 4 gb ram 
as said the os, software, and hardware have to do so ... (in 8 bit and 16 bit times segments where very common instead of 65kb ram (16 bit) you could then use 1mb (20 bit))

 

but theres the problem I dont have an NVIDIA card I have an AMD Radeon RX580 8GB Card so that solution wont work cause while driver layout may be similar AMD and NVIDIA have 2 different ways of signing it. if I modded the driver and tried to install it XP would not recognise the new info in the driver file and assume that this driver is not meant for XP resulting in no driver being installed so thats the issue where it stands.

[user57]

well unlike nvidia the radeon card´s have a different driver 

on the radeon´s website actually dont find any information what the latest drivers for certain OS´s are and what grafic cards they actually support

that is better solved with nvidia, there at least for the moment you find that information 

i think the right status about that radeon driver is not having a well solution at the moment

but again you might buy a nvidia card if you need windows xp as operating system

radeon lost a possible customer that would pay them money ...

the other only quick way would be to find the lastest available radeon driver, and buy a older radeon card (but thats not a good solution in my opinion)

here is a such discussion 

https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/amd_radeon_video_card_drivers_for_windows_xp.html

 

 

if you just missing a driver for XP for that card the kernelex patches actually dont solve all the problems (the one core api also has some) 

therefore your question would actually change, you dont have a OS problem anymore you have a missing driver problem, due a unsupported grafic card

some games actually dont work on certain operating systems, i think Resident Evil 1 needed windows 95, and the dos c&c 1 version needed a nativ DOS bootet, and did not work on windows xp either

in that case the one core api dont fix the missing functions either - coming from an ask that a newer grafic driver just installs on xp

the current kernelex dont have enough functions for a newer driver 

 

----

that with the driver signs

i had actually that problem too (win7 actually also has different versions with 2 different driver sigs) 

my usb drive was blocked and i wondered why it did that with with an upgraded win7, while the non upgraded win7 did work no problem

the solution is simple 

while boot up you bring up the boot screen via holding F8

when the first menu apears you hit F8 again , and there you can disable that driver signature 

after that my usb driver installed without any problems ... ( i still use a digital camera, useally not smartphones)

 

 

 

you should have been told that the most games actually dont run not having a grafic card driver, makes sence after all