interesting, the biggest problem i had was new graphics card drivers for xp don't exist for cards such as rx 470 nitro+ (what i had before) so i sold my graphics card/plus i bent a couple socket pins on my z97-a board (and then got pissed and tossed it at my wall and some stuff flew off) ended up selling my rx470nitro+ and 4790k. i couldn't install xp on that z97 board even with ide mode. would just blue screen and restart. anyway a 3770k @ 4.7ghz is nothing to complain about, and lets face it, back in the day we were using like ddr400-800 (period appropriate) anyway. xd

 

"i want the best performance i can get (for no real reason)"
Kid, you need to grow up.
There is no 'best performance' in computer world.

besides 16gig ram for an xp machine is dumb. XP can't access it.
If you go for XP x64, as sugested, you can as well use something more modern.
The legacy software you seem to need won't be happy on an XP x64.

Now to your question: Real software heavily depends on cpu cache and cpus jump prediction.
and that jump prediction is pretty awesome. So besides having fancy values in synthetical benchmarks
you won't have any advantage.
Are you doing it for a (not so very) retro gaming rig?

 

im 34 (although i am probably a bit too immature and geeky by most peoples standards), all my 'good' music was produced back in the glory days ~2007/8/9/10/11/12/13-ish etc.. now most things i make for lack of over-generalization tends to suck, not to say it all does though. i can't play those shooting games anymore after going 'full christian' recently, so im pretty bored. but, i fire up flstudio 5 every now and then looking at old projects to kill time, but really i can't find much to do on my xp machine.