Geforce 960 - 970 - 980 Windows XP drivers
  1 / 4    
XP will not be able to operate the device properly due to 32bit memory limitations, as both these cards are 4GB.
XP will not be able to operate the device properly due to 32bit memory limitations, as both these cards are 4GB.



In Memory of Chris "ChrisRay" Arthington, 1982-2010

Specs:
CPU:Intel Xeon x5690 @ 4.2Ghz, Mainboard:Asus Rampage III Extreme, Memory:48GB Corsair Vengeance LP 1600
Video:EVGA Geforce GTX 1080 Founders Edition, NVidia Geforce GTX 1060 Founders Edition
Monitor:ROG PG279Q, BenQ BL2211, Sound:Creative XFI Titanium Fatal1ty Pro
SDD:Crucial MX300 275, Crucial MX300 525, Crucial MX200 250
HDD:500GB Spinpoint F3, 1TB WD Black, 2TB WD Red, 1TB WD Black
Case:NZXT Phantom 820, PSU:Seasonic X-850, OS:Windows 7 SP1
Cooler: ThermalRight Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme

WIP:
CPU:Intel Xeon x5660, Mainboard:Asus Rampage II Gene, Memory:16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 LP
Video:EVGA Geforce GTX 680+ 4GB, Palit Geforce GTX 550ti
Monitor:Pending, Sound:Pending
SDD:Pending
HDD:Pending
Case:NZXT Guardian 921RB, PSU:Corsair 620HX, OS:Windows 7 SP1
Cooler: ThermalRight True Spirit 120M

#1
Posted 10/21/2014 07:07 AM   
Heyyo, Your best bet? .ini modification before driver installation. Here's what I found from a Google search. [url]http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=377158[/url] I haven't tried it myself as Windows XP does not use Physical Address Extension since Microsoft's licensing is against it I think (or just trying to push hard for 64bit which is fine by me since 64bit makes Windows more future-proof). Windows XP does tend to perform better on single applications such as running a game... but usually the performance difference is minor these days (Windows 7 is a prime example of an excellent operating system that replaced XP) so if performance of Vista scared you from upgrading? It's not really the issue anymore. Plus... Windows XP was completely dropped by Microsoft for security updates since it's passed the extended lifetime period for security updates. It's no longer maintained. Many hardware manufacturer's also followed suit since what's the point of supporting an operating system that even Microsoft said "it's too old, it's passed its prime and there's newer and better out these days." It's kind of like asking Apple if they still support Mac OS Classic (OS 9 and earlier). :P Heck, even Linux distros drop support for older distros... but then again? They offer free and direct upgrade paths to the latest supported long-term service branches of their operating systems. :) Also... Windows XP doesn't officially support DirectX 11... I've seen ways to exploit it and install DirectX 11 on Windows XP but that's all they are... hacks. There's no guarantee it'll even run properly. It's up to you OP if you want to keep running that old operating system... but it's a lot of security holes and risk of stability. As for the memory mapping argument? No it doesn't map ALL of the GPU memory for the operating system. It does require SOME space of the 4GB limit to map GPU memory to though hence the memory read rarely shows all 4GB unless you are using an integrated GPU that shares system memory.
Heyyo,

Your best bet? .ini modification before driver installation. Here's what I found from a Google search. http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=377158

I haven't tried it myself as Windows XP does not use Physical Address Extension since Microsoft's licensing is against it I think (or just trying to push hard for 64bit which is fine by me since 64bit makes Windows more future-proof).

Windows XP does tend to perform better on single applications such as running a game... but usually the performance difference is minor these days (Windows 7 is a prime example of an excellent operating system that replaced XP) so if performance of Vista scared you from upgrading? It's not really the issue anymore.

Plus... Windows XP was completely dropped by Microsoft for security updates since it's passed the extended lifetime period for security updates. It's no longer maintained. Many hardware manufacturer's also followed suit since what's the point of supporting an operating system that even Microsoft said "it's too old, it's passed its prime and there's newer and better out these days." It's kind of like asking Apple if they still support Mac OS Classic (OS 9 and earlier). :P

Heck, even Linux distros drop support for older distros... but then again? They offer free and direct upgrade paths to the latest supported long-term service branches of their operating systems. :)

Also... Windows XP doesn't officially support DirectX 11... I've seen ways to exploit it and install DirectX 11 on Windows XP but that's all they are... hacks. There's no guarantee it'll even run properly. It's up to you OP if you want to keep running that old operating system... but it's a lot of security holes and risk of stability.

As for the memory mapping argument? No it doesn't map ALL of the GPU memory for the operating system. It does require SOME space of the 4GB limit to map GPU memory to though hence the memory read rarely shows all 4GB unless you are using an integrated GPU that shares system memory.

Windows 10 Home Premium 64-bit
Ubuntu Mate/Manjaro on and off (Fix SLI in Linux please!)
Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.40GHz Ivy Bridge 22nm Technology
CORSAIR Hydro Series H80 (CWCH80) High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler
16.0GB (4x4GB) Kingston Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 2133MHz (11-12-11-30 @ 1.65V)
Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z68X-UD7-B3 (Socket 1155, Bios version F11a)
ASUS VE278 27" LCD (1920x1080@60Hz via DispalyPort with RGB Full)
2048MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (EVGA stock clock speeds)
2048MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (EVGA stock clock speeds)
SLI Enabled
Creative LabsSound Blaster Recon3D Fatal1ty Professional
Visiontek's Bigfoot Network Killernic 2100
Kingston SSDNow V+200 120GB 2.5" SSD (OS)
Seagate 4TB 3.5" 5900RPM Hybrid SSHD (Data)
Crucial V4 64GB 2.5" SSD (World of Tanks hehe ^_^)

#2
Posted 10/21/2014 07:39 PM   
[quote="ThE_MarD"] Your best bet? .ini modification before driver installation. Here's what I found from a Google search. [url]http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=377158[/url] [/quote] Great link, thanks [quote="ThE_MarD"] I haven't tried it myself as Windows XP does not use Physical Address Extension since Microsoft's licensing is against it I think (or just trying to push hard for 64bit which is fine by me since 64bit makes Windows more future-proof). [/quote] According to the Wikipedia article on PAE, those license limitations also apply to later versions of Windows: "However, "client" versions of 32-bit Windows (Windows XP SP2 and later, Windows Vista, Windows 7) limit physical address space to the first 4 GB for driver compatibility via the licensing limitation mechanism, even though these versions do run in PAE mode if NX support is enabled." [b][u][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Microsoft_Windows[/url][/u][/b] Anyways, if memory was the problem, there's no reason why NVIDIA couldn't have released 900 series drivers for XP 64. Not to mention that 4 and 8 GB graphics cards from AMD have been available for a while WITH XP driver support, even 32-bit XP. Example: [b][u][url]http://www.sapphiretech.com/presentation/product/?cid=1&gid=3&sgid=1227&pid=2283[/url][/u][/b] Also, NVIDIA hasn't added any new features to the XP drivers for a long time, so it's not as if releasing the drivers would be time consuming. I can't see the point of running a 32-bit version of Windows either - I've been on XP 64 for over 6 years and the couple of times I needed to run a 16-bit program I used a XP 32 virtual machine. It's also worthy mentioning that XP 64 is based on the Server 2003 codebase and because of that it's incomparably more stable than the dumbed down Windows'es that came after it. [quote="trdrhjjks"]Like I wrote in the beginning; I'm not interested in opinions/general knowledge about XP. I just want to hear from anybody who have tried installing Geforce 970/980 under Win XP 32-bit. If, then ... Experiences? Issues? Stability? Performance? Etc. [/quote] I believe just modding the correct .inf file should do the trick. I read on another thread that a user managed to install the 344.11 drivers on a XP machine with a 900 series cards (he didn't specify which one) after a few tries, without even modding any files. Now would you like to know the naked truth? NVIDIA are a bunch of sell outs and didn't release XP drivers for the 900 series because they are in bed with Microsoft. MS must be pressuring them hard in their pathetic attempts to kill XP, and surely offered something in return for NVIDIA's cooperation. And please spare me the "XP is no longer supported by Microsoft" bullshit - their "security updates" never protected anyone from anything that would really cause harm, and besides, the average PC user sheeple will get infected sooner or later, no matter what. Now feel free to flame on, Sora-the-master-troll and all the other [b][u][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot]useful idiots[/url][/u][/b] that dwell on these forums...
ThE_MarD said:
Your best bet? .ini modification before driver installation. Here's what I found from a Google search. http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=377158

Great link, thanks


ThE_MarD said:
I haven't tried it myself as Windows XP does not use Physical Address Extension since Microsoft's licensing is against it I think (or just trying to push hard for 64bit which is fine by me since 64bit makes Windows more future-proof).

According to the Wikipedia article on PAE, those license limitations also apply to later versions of Windows:

"However, "client" versions of 32-bit Windows (Windows XP SP2 and later, Windows Vista, Windows 7) limit physical address space to the first 4 GB for driver compatibility via the licensing limitation mechanism, even though these versions do run in PAE mode if NX support is enabled."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Microsoft_Windows

Anyways, if memory was the problem, there's no reason why NVIDIA couldn't have released 900 series drivers for XP 64. Not to mention that 4 and 8 GB graphics cards from AMD have been available for a while WITH XP driver support, even 32-bit XP. Example:

http://www.sapphiretech.com/presentation/product/?cid=1&gid=3&sgid=1227&pid=2283

Also, NVIDIA hasn't added any new features to the XP drivers for a long time, so it's not as if releasing the drivers would be time consuming.

I can't see the point of running a 32-bit version of Windows either - I've been on XP 64 for over 6 years and the couple of times I needed to run a 16-bit program I used a XP 32 virtual machine. It's also worthy mentioning that XP 64 is based on the Server 2003 codebase and because of that it's incomparably more stable than the dumbed down Windows'es that came after it.


trdrhjjks said:Like I wrote in the beginning; I'm not interested in opinions/general knowledge about XP.
I just want to hear from anybody who have tried installing Geforce 970/980 under Win XP 32-bit.
If, then ... Experiences? Issues? Stability? Performance? Etc.

I believe just modding the correct .inf file should do the trick. I read on another thread that a user managed to install the 344.11 drivers on a XP machine with a 900 series cards (he didn't specify which one) after a few tries, without even modding any files.

Now would you like to know the naked truth? NVIDIA are a bunch of sell outs and didn't release XP drivers for the 900 series because they are in bed with Microsoft. MS must be pressuring them hard in their pathetic attempts to kill XP, and surely offered something in return for NVIDIA's cooperation. And please spare me the "XP is no longer supported by Microsoft" bullshit - their "security updates" never protected anyone from anything that would really cause harm, and besides, the average PC user sheeple will get infected sooner or later, no matter what.

Now feel free to flame on, Sora-the-master-troll and all the other useful idiots that dwell on these forums...
PAE is supposed to be 36bit on processors supporting it, but windows XP only supports 32bit addressing regardless of the PAE setting.
PAE is supposed to be 36bit on processors supporting it, but windows XP only supports 32bit addressing regardless of the PAE setting.



In Memory of Chris "ChrisRay" Arthington, 1982-2010

Specs:
CPU:Intel Xeon x5690 @ 4.2Ghz, Mainboard:Asus Rampage III Extreme, Memory:48GB Corsair Vengeance LP 1600
Video:EVGA Geforce GTX 1080 Founders Edition, NVidia Geforce GTX 1060 Founders Edition
Monitor:ROG PG279Q, BenQ BL2211, Sound:Creative XFI Titanium Fatal1ty Pro
SDD:Crucial MX300 275, Crucial MX300 525, Crucial MX200 250
HDD:500GB Spinpoint F3, 1TB WD Black, 2TB WD Red, 1TB WD Black
Case:NZXT Phantom 820, PSU:Seasonic X-850, OS:Windows 7 SP1
Cooler: ThermalRight Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme

WIP:
CPU:Intel Xeon x5660, Mainboard:Asus Rampage II Gene, Memory:16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 LP
Video:EVGA Geforce GTX 680+ 4GB, Palit Geforce GTX 550ti
Monitor:Pending, Sound:Pending
SDD:Pending
HDD:Pending
Case:NZXT Guardian 921RB, PSU:Corsair 620HX, OS:Windows 7 SP1
Cooler: ThermalRight True Spirit 120M

#4
Posted 10/24/2014 07:06 AM   
[quote="trdrhjjks"]** UPDATE ** November 1st 2014: The 344.11 driver http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/344.11/344.11-desktop-winxp-32bit-english.exe [u][b]Fully supports Geforce 970/980[/b][/u]. Been testing for days using the system in post #8 zero instability, zero artifacts, zero issues, top notch performance [/quote] hi, like you, i want use GTX970 on Windows XP, i'd like to know how you get this driver download link, because there is no searching result for XP on the official nvidia site(http://www.geforce.com/drivers). sorry for my poor english :)
trdrhjjks said:** UPDATE ** November 1st 2014:

The 344.11 driver


http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/344.11/344.11-desktop-winxp-32bit-english.exe


Fully supports Geforce 970/980. Been testing for days using the system in post #8

zero instability, zero artifacts, zero issues, top notch performance


hi, like you, i want use GTX970 on Windows XP, i'd like to know how you get this driver download link, because there is no searching result for XP on the official nvidia site(http://www.geforce.com/drivers). sorry for my poor english :)

#5
Posted 11/14/2014 02:17 PM   
thank you! however i'm using a 64-bit XP, wondering if GTX970 can work on it
thank you! however i'm using a 64-bit XP, wondering if GTX970 can work on it

#6
Posted 11/19/2014 02:20 PM   
Thanks for this. I am still using Windows XP 32 bit most of the time even if I have a dual boot with Windows 7 64 bit so I really appreciate your making this driver available.
Thanks for this.

I am still using Windows XP 32 bit most of the time even if I have a dual boot with Windows 7 64 bit so I really appreciate your making this driver available.

#7
Posted 12/29/2014 11:14 PM   
You can also look here for adapted drivers: http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/drivers
You can also look here for adapted drivers: http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/drivers

Clevo P170SM-A
GTX 980M 8GB
2x 4GB
i7 4810MQ
Samsung 840 EVO 1TB
Win 7 x64 SP1, fully updated

#8
Posted 12/30/2014 09:48 AM   
Thanks for posting this. It never ceases to amaze me how many people still cling to this notion that video card VRAM is counted directly against system RAM, making 4GB video cards incompatible with 32big operating systems. I've been hearing his since I bought the 4GB version of the GeForce 285 for my WinXP setup back in 2009; it wasn't true then and it still isn't true now. Yet I still see it every time someone with 32bit OS inquires about purchasing a card with 4GB of VRAM (or a 6GB for that matter, which I guess would just set your PC right on fire). It's true that the OS allocates a portion of system RAM to the device, yes, but the 4GB onboard is addressable only by the device itself. It is not directly pooled out of system memory, and I have never run into any issues with any games which suffered any performance loss because the VRAM was full and limiting the available system RAM. The argument could possibly be made that this is because I'm not running any applications that are addressing the full 4GB, so I'm not losing enough system RAM to severely hinder performance, and there might be some truth to that, but that's also why I don't believe there are any games which those kinds of VRAM requirements that are even compatible with a 32-bit OS to begin with. So you're extremely unlikely to run into that situation on any game you'd likely be running under WinXP, even assuming I was wrong about everything else. Anyways, sorry for a bit of a rant there. :) Back to the main topic... I can confirm that the 344.11 driver does indeed work for the 970 under Windows XP, without any modification. Anything newer than that, such as the current 347.09 driver, does not (the installer fails to detect any compatible hardware and exits), which seems like a conscious decision by NVidia to [i]force[/i] their new cards to be incompatible with the older OS. That's a shame, but at least it works.
Thanks for posting this.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people still cling to this notion that video card VRAM is counted directly against system RAM, making 4GB video cards incompatible with 32big operating systems. I've been hearing his since I bought the 4GB version of the GeForce 285 for my WinXP setup back in 2009; it wasn't true then and it still isn't true now. Yet I still see it every time someone with 32bit OS inquires about purchasing a card with 4GB of VRAM (or a 6GB for that matter, which I guess would just set your PC right on fire).

It's true that the OS allocates a portion of system RAM to the device, yes, but the 4GB onboard is addressable only by the device itself. It is not directly pooled out of system memory, and I have never run into any issues with any games which suffered any performance loss because the VRAM was full and limiting the available system RAM.

The argument could possibly be made that this is because I'm not running any applications that are addressing the full 4GB, so I'm not losing enough system RAM to severely hinder performance, and there might be some truth to that, but that's also why I don't believe there are any games which those kinds of VRAM requirements that are even compatible with a 32-bit OS to begin with. So you're extremely unlikely to run into that situation on any game you'd likely be running under WinXP, even assuming I was wrong about everything else.

Anyways, sorry for a bit of a rant there. :)

Back to the main topic... I can confirm that the 344.11 driver does indeed work for the 970 under Windows XP, without any modification. Anything newer than that, such as the current 347.09 driver, does not (the installer fails to detect any compatible hardware and exits), which seems like a conscious decision by NVidia to force their new cards to be incompatible with the older OS. That's a shame, but at least it works.

#9
Posted 01/16/2015 05:35 PM   
Here you are modded working GTX 980/970/960 drivers for Windows XP, latest version: http://www.kaminata.net/download-modded-working-gtx-980-970-960-drivers-for-windows-xp-version-347-25-t92695.html Files have been scanned with Kaspersky. http://i58.tinypic.com/zkjyp1.jpg
Here you are modded working GTX 980/970/960 drivers for Windows XP, latest version:


http://www.kaminata.net/download-modded-working-gtx-980-970-960-drivers-for-windows-xp-version-347-25-t92695.html


Files have been scanned with Kaspersky.


http://i58.tinypic.com/zkjyp1.jpg

#10
Posted 01/27/2015 01:17 PM   
[quote="McSwifty"]Thanks for posting this. It never ceases to amaze me how many people still cling to this notion that video card VRAM is counted directly against system RAM, making 4GB video cards incompatible with 32big operating systems. I've been hearing his since I bought the 4GB version of the GeForce 285 for my WinXP setup back in 2009; it wasn't true then and it still isn't true now. Yet I still see it every time someone with 32bit OS inquires about purchasing a card with 4GB of VRAM (or a 6GB for that matter, which I guess would just set your PC right on fire). It's true that the OS allocates a portion of system RAM to the device, yes, but the 4GB onboard is addressable only by the device itself. It is not directly pooled out of system memory, and I have never run into any issues with any games which suffered any performance loss because the VRAM was full and limiting the available system RAM. The argument could possibly be made that this is because I'm not running any applications that are addressing the full 4GB, so I'm not losing enough system RAM to severely hinder performance, and there might be some truth to that, but that's also why I don't believe there are any games which those kinds of VRAM requirements that are even compatible with a 32-bit OS to begin with. So you're extremely unlikely to run into that situation on any game you'd likely be running under WinXP, even assuming I was wrong about everything else. Anyways, sorry for a bit of a rant there. :) Back to the main topic... I can confirm that the 344.11 driver does indeed work for the 970 under Windows XP, without any modification. Anything newer than that, such as the current 347.09 driver, does not (the installer fails to detect any compatible hardware and exits), which seems like a conscious decision by NVidia to [i]force[/i] their new cards to be incompatible with the older OS. That's a shame, but at least it works.[/quote] Because of the simple fact that it used to be.
McSwifty said:Thanks for posting this.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people still cling to this notion that video card VRAM is counted directly against system RAM, making 4GB video cards incompatible with 32big operating systems. I've been hearing his since I bought the 4GB version of the GeForce 285 for my WinXP setup back in 2009; it wasn't true then and it still isn't true now. Yet I still see it every time someone with 32bit OS inquires about purchasing a card with 4GB of VRAM (or a 6GB for that matter, which I guess would just set your PC right on fire).

It's true that the OS allocates a portion of system RAM to the device, yes, but the 4GB onboard is addressable only by the device itself. It is not directly pooled out of system memory, and I have never run into any issues with any games which suffered any performance loss because the VRAM was full and limiting the available system RAM.

The argument could possibly be made that this is because I'm not running any applications that are addressing the full 4GB, so I'm not losing enough system RAM to severely hinder performance, and there might be some truth to that, but that's also why I don't believe there are any games which those kinds of VRAM requirements that are even compatible with a 32-bit OS to begin with. So you're extremely unlikely to run into that situation on any game you'd likely be running under WinXP, even assuming I was wrong about everything else.

Anyways, sorry for a bit of a rant there. :)

Back to the main topic... I can confirm that the 344.11 driver does indeed work for the 970 under Windows XP, without any modification. Anything newer than that, such as the current 347.09 driver, does not (the installer fails to detect any compatible hardware and exits), which seems like a conscious decision by NVidia to force their new cards to be incompatible with the older OS. That's a shame, but at least it works.


Because of the simple fact that it used to be.



In Memory of Chris "ChrisRay" Arthington, 1982-2010

Specs:
CPU:Intel Xeon x5690 @ 4.2Ghz, Mainboard:Asus Rampage III Extreme, Memory:48GB Corsair Vengeance LP 1600
Video:EVGA Geforce GTX 1080 Founders Edition, NVidia Geforce GTX 1060 Founders Edition
Monitor:ROG PG279Q, BenQ BL2211, Sound:Creative XFI Titanium Fatal1ty Pro
SDD:Crucial MX300 275, Crucial MX300 525, Crucial MX200 250
HDD:500GB Spinpoint F3, 1TB WD Black, 2TB WD Red, 1TB WD Black
Case:NZXT Phantom 820, PSU:Seasonic X-850, OS:Windows 7 SP1
Cooler: ThermalRight Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme

WIP:
CPU:Intel Xeon x5660, Mainboard:Asus Rampage II Gene, Memory:16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 LP
Video:EVGA Geforce GTX 680+ 4GB, Palit Geforce GTX 550ti
Monitor:Pending, Sound:Pending
SDD:Pending
HDD:Pending
Case:NZXT Guardian 921RB, PSU:Corsair 620HX, OS:Windows 7 SP1
Cooler: ThermalRight True Spirit 120M

#11
Posted 01/27/2015 01:47 PM   
Nope: http://i60.tinypic.com/14e1n2v.jpg

#12
Posted 01/29/2015 12:10 AM   
XP x86, ASUS Strix GTX 980. What's the point of your question?
XP x86, ASUS Strix GTX 980. What's the point of your question?

#13
Posted 01/29/2015 04:33 PM   
That is the correct ID but it is not present in the XP version of the drivers. On the other hand listdevices.txt is not in anyway relevant to the list of devices that are actually supported by the drivers.
That is the correct ID but it is not present in the XP version of the drivers. On the other hand listdevices.txt is not in anyway relevant to the list of devices that are actually supported by the drivers.

#14
Posted 01/29/2015 05:19 PM   
This is hard to explain because they are different in every version of drivers. I'm not such an expert too.
This is hard to explain because they are different in every version of drivers. I'm not such an expert too.

#15
Posted 01/29/2015 05:37 PM   
  1 / 4    
Scroll To Top