High Definition on Windows XP?

[Electricblue]

Hey, I'm hoping there are some PC nerds out there who could answer this for me

I have a homebuilt PC with Intel Pentium D Dual core 3Ghz processor, and nVidia 9600gt graphics card.

The CPU normally runs very hot when I'm playing a game at 1024x768 on my 15" VGA screen. I'm getting a 27" 1080p TV for Xmas, and I want to run all my games and movies at maximum 1080p resolution via HDMI.

1. Does Windows XP play HD videos?

2. Will HD put additional load on the CPU or just the Graphics card? I don't want the CPU any hotter than it is.

Thanks

[L-A]

The 9600GT should handle it well. *Some* operations will still be handled by the CPU, but the difference in the OS should be minor.

What I'm curious about is the airflow of your case. The Pentium D processors (I'm guessing yours is a Presler?) aren't energy-efficient and they can run extremely hot.

To achieve good performance by today's standards with such a CPU, you should try to watercool it, or switch the computer to a high-airflow case like a HAF-932.

[Electricblue]

It's a Presler. It runs about 90*C with a Load.

Would it be worth getting a new processor? I just tried a 1080p Video with my normal screen running at 1024x768. The video was very jerky.

[Eric Perry]

Going from 1024 x 768 (which is way low by today's standards) to the native resolution of a 27" hi-def monitor is certainly going to tax your GPU more.

I'd def. check airflow, and update all drivers. You can also get some tweaked GPU drivers better manipulated for high intensity gaming. Check out some forums. I got a great driver that handled my gaming noticeably better than stock from Forum.NotebookReview.com. I think they have a desktop section as well. Its been a while.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I run an XP Pro SP3 system with a Q6600, NVidia 8800GTX into a 24inch (1900x1200) monitor.

Run everything at 1900x1200, so, I couldn't see HD being a problem.

[Eric Perry]

On a side note, I just installed TinyXP on an old laptop I had laying around. Quite snappier than stock!

I'm still a big XP fanboi!

[Spencerthegreat]

Well for one, you aren't going to have any direct x 10 support. So running games at a higher res will still kinda look like crap. I used to have a Pentium D and one of my biggest problems with it was running HD video playback, not to mention it wouldn't run Far Cry 2 at anything over 1024x768. Honestly man, with the price of PC parts now, you're better off grabbing a cheap mobo and quad core AMD or something. Even with that video card, by today's standards that card is a joke. The low end Radeon HD 5660 in my laptop probably runs better than that. My current setup is an 8 core bulldozer @ 3.2ghz, 12gb of DDR 3 2000 and 2 x Radeon HD 5770's. The resolutions I get off Skyrim are unreal. But yeah... if you want to play any new games, don't expect that setup to do anything past 1024 x 786 well. Anything you do above that res will be choppy. No matter how well it's cooled. Sorry to sound like such a downer. But you can't expect to run anything now really well on a CPU and GPU that like at least 4 years old.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I'd expect the 9600GT to be better than my 8800GTX, and I haven't had any difficulty running games at 1900x1200 and the max (for DX9) settings, and find them to be pretty enough, and no, not choppy at all.

I can run DX10 on that card, but, obviously need Windows 7 (yeah, lets not even look at Vista).

[john grey]

To the OP:
How do you KNOW you are up to 90C ? That sounds just too high for the chip to not be shutting down after a moment or so. A great deal of software temp finders are crap. If your CMOS is telling you 90, that's one thing, but if it's some shareware temp gauge I would check again with something much more reliable.

[Selta]

It depends on the games and your settings, but if they're anything new (2008 or newer) and you want max rez and high settings, forget about it. That GPU won't handle it. But, the CPU shouldn't get much more load on it. I would start considering a GPU upgrade, and if your CPU is really getting that hot, would evaluate airflow and also the heatsink and to make sure that it's not full of "stuff". Those Pentium D's are pretty antiquated... eventually you're going to hit a brick wall with it, and probably sooner than later.

[Electricblue]

To the last 2 posts:

I setup the BIOS settings to shut down at 85*C and it kept shutting down. I cranked it to 95*C and it hasn't shut down on me. So somewhere between 85 and 95 C. I used an external temperature sensor, it sensed about the same as the BIOS.

The GPU has DVI outputs and says 1080p HD on the box, I think. It's 512mb, I can't remember the details off by heart.

Here we are: Newegg.com - ASUS EN9600GT/HTDI/512M GeForce 9600 GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

I'm truly thinking that the CPU is the weak link here? It doesn't get hot when I play the video, just very choppy.

[Spencerthegreat]

I'm telling you man, it's the GPU AND the CPU. Neither of those are designed to run really good games. I mean, sure if you wanna run like... GTA 4 or a 5 year old game... then they will run fine on your 5 year old gear, but if you ran fallout 3 on that and tried to up any of the draw distances your PC would die.Forget about playing Skyrim or Fallout NV, Duke Forever, Bioshock 2,either of the Crysis games... **** even AOE3 would probably lag that card. 512 mb of ram on a card for modern games is nothing... my smart phone has more internal RAM not to mention it probably has more processing speed too. I hate to sound like an *******, but that setup is beyond outdated. I have a total of 2gb video memory DDR5 running at 1440mhz and even that... Crysis 2 on uber settings is a little choppy when loading far off details. Skyrim runs like a champ though. Boosh. I'm just saying, if you're going to put money into it. Then beef up that rig. Cause chances are you're only running 400 - 800mhz ram on a 200- 400mhz FSB. The pentium D was never designed as a gaming platform. It's a workhorse for MS Office though. And that 9800, it was a good card. I'm not arguing that. But the key word there is WAS. You can build a serious machine now for like 400 bux.

[Electricblue]

I'm not really looking to make an extreme gaming machine, just one that can do what I do at the moment, but at a high resolution. The most demanding game I would run is Crysis on maxed settings on 1024x768. It copes fine with that...

[Selta]

1024x768 is an extremely small amount of pixels compared to 1920x1080. That CPU+GPU will *not* push Crysis, even at mid settings. The hardware is just too old sadly.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Spencerthegreat

then they will run fine on your 5 year old gear, but if you ran fallout 3 on that and tried to up any of the draw distances your PC would die.Forget about playing Skyrim or Fallout NV, Duke Forever, Bioshock 2,either of the Crysis games... **** even AOE3 would probably lag that card.

My PC is pushing 4 years and plays all of those games (with the exception of Skyrim and Crysis 2, as I don't have either) just fine. I've never been able to max out the settings because I'm limited to DX9, but what I get runs fine at 1900x1200 at the max DX9 settings...

[Selta]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

My PC is pushing 4 years and plays all of those games (with the exception of Skyrim and Crysis 2, as I don't have either) just fine. I've never been able to max out the settings because I'm limited to DX9, but what I get runs fine at 1900x1200 at the max DX9 settings...

DX9 versus DX10 is like comparing apples to oranges... a whole lot more GPU stress is placed on DX10 (and DX11 in appropriate cases).

[Jazz Ad]

What you really need is a good clean up of the inside of the computer and better dissipator and fans. No reason for your CPU to run that hot with proper air cooling.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Ray Salamon

DX9 versus DX10 is like comparing apples to oranges... a whole lot more GPU stress is placed on DX10 (and DX11 in appropriate cases).

I have no doubt it will.

However, as I recently made the move back to XP from 7 (some older softwares I need for work were being tetchy), and as the OP seems to be using/staying with XP, it's a redundant point.

The OP is asking about HD and higher resolution graphics, on XP.

[Selta]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

I have no doubt it will.

However, as I recently made the move back to XP from 7 (some older softwares I need for work were being tetchy), and as the OP seems to be using/staying with XP, it's a redundant point.

The OP is asking about HD and higher resolution graphics, on XP.

Hah! I entirely forgot that XP doesn't have DX10. Guess it only makes sense that antiquated hardware would be running an antiquated OS

[i_got_a_mohawk]

7's getting there, when it runs everything I need it to run, I'll make the switch back

I'll also add that I know my card, and I presume the OP's newer card, can also support DX10