Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Most modern CPU for Windows XP 32 Bit?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Windows XP
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 12, 2013 9:44:23 PM

Hello,
What would be the most current / modern / fastest CPU that Windows XP 32 Bit would be able to take most advantage of all the features that the CPU could provide? I'm not interested in overkill by using i5 or even approaching those modern CPUs. But I am looking for the fastest and most powerful that Windows XP 32 Bit can take advantage of. I'm building a machine purely for experimental / historical purposes.
Thank you.

More about : modern cpu windows bit

a c 136 à CPUs
January 12, 2013 10:16:26 PM

whats ur budget for a new build and nothings worth building around windows xp 32bit, might as well try for windows 64bit :) 

m
0
l
January 12, 2013 10:20:42 PM

Hiya,
Interesting question. I did some research. From wikipedia:
On January 30, 2007, it was released worldwide[5] and was made available for purchase and download from Microsoft's website.
Tom's Hardware does their own CPU charts. They have one for 2007, so I've taken the information from there. Based on that, Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6850 seemed to be the most powerful processor of the time.
Is that the kind of answer you were looking for?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 487 à CPUs
January 12, 2013 10:35:11 PM

As long as the motherboard manufacturer has drivers for Win XP, then you should have no problems using the older OS on newer hardware.

The basic limitations you are going to run into is that your maximum RAM will be around 3.2GB - 3.4GB using a 32-bit OS and you will be limited to DirectX 9c graphic effects. Since you are not playing any games, you do not need anything more than DX9c.

Win XP can still take advantage of Intel's Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs and AMD's FX series and APU series. I will add that I am not positive if Windows XP can make use of the 6 or 8 cores in AMD's FX lineup.
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 10:35:33 PM

Per the other user's response. (1) My budget is unlimited, but I know the cost won't be too high as there will be an upper limit on processor power and therefore cost unless at this point old CPUs are rare which may jack the price up. But I'm not worried about that now. (2) I want to use Windows XP 32 Bit not 64 Bit because I've read that XP 64 Bit drivers are hard to find and I don't want to bother with that. I know that historically household users moved from XP 32 Bit to Vista and newer and that XP 64 Bit was less common, so I'm willing to avoid XP 64 Bit and experiment with XP 32 Bit.

To neo_classical: Yes, a suggestion like "Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6850" is what I'm looking for. I know that XP 32 Bit has limitations on number of CPU and cores. . I already know about 32 Bit RAM limitations, so I'm currently looking for the fastest most powerful CPU that Windows XP 32 Bit can use such as GHz, cores, etc. I see that the Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6850 is a quad core 64 Bit compatible CPU, so I think that may be overkill as I don't think XP 32 Bit can use all those cores. But I'm trying to learn more and would use any additional suggestions.

Thank you.
m
0
l
January 12, 2013 10:43:24 PM

To jaguarskx: I think you have the answer I'm looking for. After more reading I see that RAM is the limitation and 32 Bit operating systems will in fact run on modern CPUs, just not able to take advantage of all that a 64 bit OS might. So maybe I look for a cheap yet modern high GHz chip and I will be in good shape. I'm guessing there may be a bit of a plateau or diminishing returns at some point. Do you have a suggestion on a really fast cheap CPU that is just a little bit more modern than XP 32 Bit can take advantage of?
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 136 à CPUs
January 12, 2013 10:45:13 PM

3570k is ur answer mate :) 

Share
a c 154 à CPUs
January 12, 2013 10:46:11 PM

Any CPU will work I have an I5 2500k running on a computer downstairs with XP. It works fine.
m
0
l
a c 487 à CPUs
January 12, 2013 10:47:28 PM

All modern CPU from either Intel or AMD can run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications.

The fastest / most powerful consumer oriented CPUs Windows XP 32-bit can use are Intel's Sandy Bridge-E socket 2011 CPUs. They are rather expensive so dropping down to a Core i5-3570k or Core i7-3770k is more economical.
m
0
l
a c 136 à CPUs
January 12, 2013 10:48:15 PM

def, 3570k would be a fast recent intel cpu, the 3770k been more costly, and the 2011 socket been alot more expensive and not worth it.

m
0
l
a c 487 à CPUs
January 12, 2013 10:58:59 PM

The Core i5-3570k is better than the i7-3770k if the programs you will be using does not take advantage of Hyper Threading.

Intel "k" models are more economical than the "non-k" models (like the i5-3570, i5-3450) when it comes to perform per $$ because they can be easily overclocked for more performance.
m
0
l
a c 136 à CPUs
January 12, 2013 11:46:48 PM

agreed +1 :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2013 12:40:17 AM

hand123 said:
Hello,
What would be the most current / modern / fastest CPU that Windows XP 32 Bit would be able to take most advantage of all the features that the CPU could provide? I'm not interested in overkill by using i5 or even approaching those modern CPUs. But I am looking for the fastest and most powerful that Windows XP 32 Bit can take advantage of. I'm building a machine purely for experimental / historical purposes.
Thank you.


The answer is any CPU. As of today, it supports anything. And it's a bit premature to do historical work on XP. It's still fairly current has still boasts a huge market share.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2013 12:56:33 AM

hand123 said:
Per the other user's response. (1) My budget is unlimited, but I know the cost won't be too high as there will be an upper limit on processor power and therefore cost.......

...... so I'm currently looking for the fastest most powerful CPU that Windows XP 32 Bit can use such as GHz, cores, etc. I see that the Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6850 is a quad core 64 Bit compatible CPU, so I think that may be overkill as I don't think XP 32 Bit can use all those cores. But I'm trying to learn more and would use any additional suggestions.

Thank you.


I'm sorry, but your horrifically misinformed. XP can use any CPU out there right now.

If you want the most powerful get the. intel i7 - 3970x Six core. It's the fastest desktop processor on the market today.
m
0
l
January 13, 2013 12:59:31 AM

amd a10 5800k, hands down..
m
0
l
a c 136 à CPUs
January 13, 2013 2:57:14 AM

thats a budget chip, and is for htpcs,
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2013 3:06:53 AM

All 64 bit processors can run 32 bit operating systems. So pick the best bang for the buck based on your needs and desires and go to town.

Personally, if this is just for messing with a 32 bit OS, I'd just run it in a VM on a 64 bit modern OS. But you can run 32 bit windows with a 16 core Opteron if you want.
m
0
l
January 13, 2013 3:48:10 AM

if you don't want to overkill with your spec, then core i3 3220 is good enough,, but if you want more than I agree with iceclock and jaguarskx :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2013 3:57:01 AM

Some points:

The latest i5s and i7s require the latest chipsets to support them. Chipsets that may or may not have XP compatible drivers. And no manufactures websites are going to be publishing new drivers for XP. MS put a nail in that coffin. XP is dead. I loved it too but it’s time to mourn and move on.org

3GB of DDR2/3 max? DX 10 ?

Sure it’s fun to speculate, but as someone who maintains FAA systems that still use 3.11 and DOS 5.0 I can tell you that this is a road he DOES NOT want to travel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2013 4:29:39 AM

Are you guys even reading the OP's original post? The only thing the last three posts have in common with the question is that they mention Windows XP.
m
0
l
January 13, 2013 4:34:16 AM

FALC0N said:
Are you guys even reading the OP's original post? The only thing the last three posts have in common with the question is that they mention Windows XP.

don't you read the comments? the OP change his mind because of 32bit limitation for memory
cmiiw
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2013 4:39:44 AM

kovzone said:
don't you read the comments? the OP change his mind because of 32bit limitation for memory
cmiiw


Really? And where did he say that, kovzone?

So I say again, are some of you even reading the OP's question? And now I can add reading the thread to the equation because nowhere in the entire thread does he say he changed his mind about anything, let alone changing his mind because of the 32 bit memory limit.

m
0
l
a c 136 à CPUs
January 13, 2013 4:43:37 AM

he said whats the fastest cpu for windows xp 32bit, im still puzzled why u would want to use a 32bit os, but ok

fastest cpu would be the http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

1070$ extreme edition for the mass public, but i see no point for such spending.

m
0
l
January 13, 2013 4:55:51 AM

to FALC0N

I thought by this comment he means like what I said before

hand123 said:
To jaguarskx: I think you have the answer I'm looking for. After more reading I see that RAM is the limitation and 32 Bit operating systems will in fact run on modern CPUs, just not able to take advantage of all that a 64 bit OS might. So maybe I look for a cheap yet modern high GHz chip and I will be in good shape. I'm guessing there may be a bit of a plateau or diminishing returns at some point. Do you have a suggestion on a really fast cheap CPU that is just a little bit more modern than XP 32 Bit can take advantage of?

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2013 5:02:44 AM

kovzone said:
to FALC0N

I thought by this comment he means like what I said before


Thats not what he meant, but In retrospect can see why you misread it as such.

The guy didn't really seam to understand XP very well to begin with. He talked about it more like it was Windows 98. Saying it wouldn't support 4 cores and something about clock speed limits and historical research. He just doesn't seem to understand the software or the hardware enough to achieve his goals. Good luck to him though.
m
0
l
a c 136 à CPUs
January 13, 2013 5:08:30 AM

im shur he will find an answer, i mean why not just use windows 7 64bit, theres really no point in using an obselete os.

m
0
l
January 13, 2013 5:09:36 AM

FALC0N said:
Thats not what he meant, but In retrospect can see why you misread it as such.

The guy didn't really seam to understand XP very well to begin with. He talked about it more like it was Windows 98. Saying it wouldn't support 4 cores and something about clock speed limits and historical research. He just doesn't seem to understand the software or the hardware enough to achieve his goals. Good luck to him though.

:lol: 
alright, I'm sory I've just misunderstood because the comments after that are supporting my understanding :lol: 

yes, good luck for OP ;) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2013 5:25:21 AM

iceclock said:
im shur he will find an answer, i mean why not just use windows 7 64bit, theres really no point in using an obselete os.


He wasn't trying to use it. He wanted to experiment with it. Why, I'm not entirely sure. Maybe it was one of those silly projects we end up doing for no apparent reason. But a project like that cant be done with a few forum posts. Pull out some manuals, read, and get some cheap hardware and just tinker.

Spirit of exploration for explorations sake isn't a bad thing at all. He just needs a little more study.
m
0
l
a c 136 à CPUs
January 13, 2013 2:28:50 PM

and cheap hardware. not the fastest possible cpu lol, very expensive experiment if i may say.

m
0
l
January 23, 2013 3:41:13 AM

Best answer selected by hand123.
m
0
l
a c 136 à CPUs
January 23, 2013 3:43:00 AM

cheers. :) 

m
0
l
January 23, 2013 3:52:08 AM

Based on reading all of the posts, I've decided to go with the 3570k. First mentioned by iceclock and confirmed by comments from jaguarskx. Thank you all for your responses. With your input I was able to do a bit of research, weigh all the pros and cons and make a decision to suit my needs. I'm sorry the final few posts went in the direction that they did. The 32bit memory limitation ultimately did not affect my decision. I chose to avoid Win XP 64 bit for the scarcity of drivers. I wanted to avoid Vista all together. And I was not interested in a Microsoft operating system newer than Vista. So Windows XP 32 bit is where I landed. With the price and speed of the processor suggested, I believe I will be happy. Yes, this is purely an experiment. I am aware of the costs, the limitations, and the somewhat illogical nature of the experiment. I appreciate all of your comments. Thanks again!
m
0
l
a c 136 à CPUs
January 23, 2013 4:02:11 AM

vista=junk. windows xp 64= driver problems and lack of proper drivers.

well atleast u can recycle the cpu in another build xD


m
0
l
!