Best 3D card for AMD 500 mhz K6-2 ?
Jorge Morales
upgrade CPU which chip will yield better performance a AMD K6-2 at 550 mhz
or K6-3 at 450 MHz?? Does AMD make a K6-3 at a higher speed than 450 mhz?
CPU is used mainly for games and is running 128megs SDRAMM ram.
Also, which 3D board would be best for this set up. 3dfx voodoo 3 / 3000
(PCI) or some type on nVidia based board (which one? PCI )
Thanks,
JORGE
Chad E. Cowan
might as well buy an Athlon 600 ($167) from a site listed on
www.pricewatch.com, and get a decent Slot-A motherboard. That said . . .
I know the K6-3 450 MHz has some minor architectural advances over the K6-2,
but I'm betting a K6-2 550 ($100 exactly, at www.pricewatch.com) is probably
head-to-head right along with it. And especially considering that the K6-3
450 MHz costs around $200, might as well go for the K6-2. That said and the
figures well understood . . .
Get an Athlon 600! After buying a new motherboard, you'll have spent only
$50 more than if you had gone with a K6-3 450 MHz! And you'll have a killer
processor to boot. When paired with 3DNow! I've seen 3dfx cards to be the
best. Get the AGP version Voodoo3 2000 or 3000. You'll be very happy with
that card and a modern AMD chip.
I heard a while back about a small number of 500 MHz K6-3's being available,
but I haven't seen any though I have looked hard!
Don't get me wrong, I'm an Intel/nvidia guy with a P-III 750 MHz overclocked
to 866 MHz, GeForce 256 DDR overclocked, etc. But it seems that people who
consider K6-2's and K6-3's don't have their PC's as the altar to which their
money flows. Just an informed opinion . . .
Chad
"Jorge Morales" <Sycho_G...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e7IHhFOl$GA.225@cpmsnbbsa03...
Nastard
overclocked
> to 866 MHz, GeForce 256 DDR overclocked, etc. But it seems that people who
> consider K6-2's and K6-3's don't have their PC's as the altar to which
their
> money flows. Just an informed opinion . . .
bzzzzt
I've spent every extra penny on my machine for the last year or so. I ONLY
use AMD processors.
history:
k6-2/300
k6-2/350
k6-3/450
athlon/700
this box is the altar to which my cash flows, and it shows. i bet itll
whoop up on your p3 :)
athlon 700 *coughcough200MHzFSBcoughcough*
k7m
512MB PC100
Voodoo3 3500
SBLive! Platinum
4pt surround (cambridge)
maxtor 20gig udma66 7200
8x4x32
5x dvd
48x cdrom
20inch monitor
cable inet
this, of course, excludes periphs
Jim
the system price ??? LOL Sounds like a nice unit.
--
Jim Evans
"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our
humanity." - Albert Einstein -
Nastard <nas...@corellia.8m.com> wrote in message
news:H4vC4.11849$x65.7...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
Dimex
of shit), but
I'm sure my Celeron 400@540 with my GeForce256DDR can outrun your system in
Q3A :-)
--
Dimex.
Alan Shepherd
there will available a PCI GeForce based card from ELSA.
The CPU, you may see an improvement with a K6-3 450, but not much, also the
K6-2 550 will give almost no noticeable improvement so in my opinion don't
bother with the CPU.
If you MUST go with a PCI video card make sure that you can:
1) Set in the BIOS PCI video card as primary, on some motherboards this
CANNOT be done.
2) Or disable on the on-board agp video card.
Hyper
>
> Hmm. I am not anti-AMD or anything (I used to own a K6-2 300 - what a piece
> of shit), but
> I'm sure my Celeron 400@540 with my GeForce256DDR can outrun your system in
> Q3A :-)
It might but only because the GeForce is better than the Voodoo 3
--
Computer help available at http://members.xoom.com/Hyper_Hands/
"So I said, 'Red MM, Blue MM, they all end up the same color'"
Dimex
most likely costs less than his, but performs in Q3A better. $62 Celeron
vs. $200 K700. And V3500 and my GeForceDDR ($247) are about the same price
too. Better HDD too :-) No offense, Nastard :-)
--
Dimex.
Hyper <ji...@snip.net> wrote in message news:38DAB1A8...@snip.net...
Hyper
>
> Heh, yeah, that's true, but the point I was trying to make is that my system
> most likely costs less than his, but performs in Q3A better. $62 Celeron
> vs. $200 K700. And V3500 and my GeForceDDR ($247) are about the same price
> too. Better HDD too :-) No offense, Nastard :-)
the celeron can compete with K6-2s not Athlons. The only chip on the market
that can compete against the Athlon is the P3 and Intel is having some
production problems so their 1 ghz processors are way understocked
Simon Collins
multiplied FSB not a genuine one which Intel uses. However Athlons have
been proven to perform better but I bet the average user couldn't tell the
difference. It's only when you bring the benchmarking/statistics scenario
into the equation you can differ them.
SimonC.
P.S You may have a decent PC but I bet I still get better ping sitting on a
nice 155mb backbone.
Hyper wrote in message <38DADAB0...@snip.net>...
Chip
that this is a
> multiplied FSB not a genuine one which Intel uses.
However Athlons have
> been proven to perform better but I bet the average user
couldn't tell the
> difference. It's only when you bring the
benchmarking/statistics scenario
> into the equation you can differ them.
The 200FSB is for the CPU and that's about it. Think your
memory is running at 200Mhz? nope. Your PCI and AGP slots
aren't going any faster either.
BTW, if you're serious about a monster machine, there is no
substitute for SCSI. For most, SCSI just doesn't make
sense, but if you're serious and I mean a serious computer
speed freak, frankenstein-makin' junkie then start going
SCSI now.
www.clanbeowulf.org/chip.htm (my SCSI beast, Frankenstein)
Darren Teasdale
and faster then both the other K6 cpu's mentioned in this thread.
Chad E. Cowan <chs...@u.waashington.edu> wrote in message
news:8bdpuk$pe4$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu...
> I know it's tempting to stay with the same motherboard, but if you can you
> might as well buy an Athlon 600 ($167) from a site listed on
> www.pricewatch.com, and get a decent Slot-A motherboard. That said . . .
>
> I know the K6-3 450 MHz has some minor architectural advances over the
K6-2,
> but I'm betting a K6-2 550 ($100 exactly, at www.pricewatch.com) is
probably
> head-to-head right along with it. And especially considering that the K6-3
> 450 MHz costs around $200, might as well go for the K6-2. That said and
the
> figures well understood . . .
>
> Get an Athlon 600! After buying a new motherboard, you'll have spent only
> $50 more than if you had gone with a K6-3 450 MHz! And you'll have a
killer
> processor to boot. When paired with 3DNow! I've seen 3dfx cards to be the
> best. Get the AGP version Voodoo3 2000 or 3000. You'll be very happy with
> that card and a modern AMD chip.
>
> I heard a while back about a small number of 500 MHz K6-3's being
available,
> but I haven't seen any though I have looked hard!
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm an Intel/nvidia guy with a P-III 750 MHz
overclocked
> to 866 MHz, GeForce 256 DDR overclocked, etc. But it seems that people who
> consider K6-2's and K6-3's don't have their PC's as the altar to which
their
> money flows. Just an informed opinion . . .
>
> Chad
>
> "Jorge Morales" <Sycho_G...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:e7IHhFOl$GA.225@cpmsnbbsa03...
> > I have an NEC GT-200 with an AMD K6-2 running at 500 MHz now. I want to
> > upgrade CPU which chip will yield better performance a AMD K6-2 at 550
mhz
> > or K6-3 at 450 MHz?? Does AMD make a K6-3 at a higher speed than 450
mhz?
> > CPU is used mainly for games and is running 128megs SDRAMM ram.
> >
> >
> >
Sir Gwynz
<snip>
>BTW, if you're serious about a monster machine, there is no
>substitute for SCSI. For most, SCSI just doesn't make
>sense, but if you're serious and I mean a serious computer
>speed freak, frankenstein-makin' junkie then start going
>SCSI now.
>
>www.clanbeowulf.org/chip.htm (my SCSI beast, Frankenstein)
>
>Chip *BW*
>ch...@clanbeowulf.org
>www.clanbeowulf.org
>
SCSI is still pretty expensive. Wouldn't you get comparable
performance and more storage for your dollar running a pair of UDMA/66
drives in a RAID 0 setup instead?
Hyper
>
> As regards the 200MHZ bus the Athlon uses I swear I read that this is a
> multiplied FSB not a genuine one which Intel uses. However Athlons have
> been proven to perform better but I bet the average user couldn't tell the
> difference. It's only when you bring the benchmarking/statistics scenario
> into the equation you can differ them.
>
>
> P.S You may have a decent PC but I bet I still get better ping sitting on a
> nice 155mb backbone.
You are beating around the bush Simon. Your PC might have higher frame rates in
Q3A then his, but that would only be because the V3 sucks compared to the
GeForce. You might get a better ping but that has nothing to do with your
processor. Your Celeron blows monkey nuts compared to his Athlon and you know
it
Chip
comparable
> performance and more storage for your dollar running a
pair of UDMA/66
> drives in a RAID 0 setup instead?
Not at all. RAID is totally different. Its more of a
failsafe in case one drive crashes. Redundant Array of
Inexpensive Disks.
More bang for your buck with one or two UDMA IDE devices in
certain circumstances but SCSI IMHO will always be more
expensive and a much much better product. Besides building
a system like mine with IDE would be next to impossible,
slow and silly.
SCSI, was just too far ahead of its time. Two years ago it
was lightyears ahead of IDE. At least now IDE is in the
same ballpark.
Dimex
SSE, so I think for a budget-oriented consumer like me, a Celeron is a much
better value than a K7. With a chip that costs only $62, I can upgrade mine
3 times in the course of a few months for the price of a single $200 K7, and
end up having a faster chip in the future for the same price when the new
batch of celeron models gets released. I think Athlon and the P3 are both
great chips, but to me they are not worth paying $200+ for, when I can have
almost the same speed for so much less.
In most common computing tasks that I do (gaming, browsing, cd burning,
etc), the celeron is just a way better dollar-for-dollar value than the K7
or the P3, and the performance of my 540Mhz system in the above tasks will
be very close to his.
Notice that I am not taking sides. I've said this before and I'll say it
once again: brand loyalty is the worst thing you can do to yourself as a
consumer. Never stick with one company out of principle, "keep an open
mind." This is apparent in your K6-2 vs. Celeron claim. I do not think
you're really using clear judgement here. A Celeron only costs about $15
more than a comparable K6-2, yet it overclocks better, has none of those
Super7 bullshit compatibility problems (i've had lots of negative experience
with those), and outperforms the K6-2 in pretty much every benchmark
(especially gaming).
--
Dimex.
Hyper <ji...@snip.net> wrote in message news:38DADAB0...@snip.net...
> Dimex wrote:
> >
> > Heh, yeah, that's true, but the point I was trying to make is that my
system
> > most likely costs less than his, but performs in Q3A better. $62
Celeron
> > vs. $200 K700. And V3500 and my GeForceDDR ($247) are about the same
price
> > too. Better HDD too :-) No offense, Nastard :-)
> Your $62 celeron gets blown to pieces by his $200 K7 700. Do some
comparisons,
> the celeron can compete with K6-2s not Athlons. The only chip on the
market
> that can compete against the Athlon is the P3 and Intel is having some
> production problems so their 1 ghz processors are way understocked
MikeE
MikeE
Darren Teasdale <d...@thames20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8bgalp$51ea7$1...@fu-berlin.de...
noise
Sir Gwynz wrote:
>
> SCSI is still pretty expensive. Wouldn't you get comparable
> performance and more storage for your dollar running a pair of UDMA/66
> drives in a RAID 0 setup instead?
Nah, you wouldn't. One of the big reasons is CPU overhead. Modern SCSI
controllers are high-level controllers; the system just kind of says "store
(or load) this file!" and the SCSI system does it. In ANY type of IDE setup,
the CPU can barely get a microsecond's peace when doing file I/O. It has
to tell the controller to advance to the next piece of the file, then to go
ahead and load it, etc etc.
Modern fast CPU's and motherbaords with all their parallelism etc. benefit
from SCSI especially for that reason - the CPU can be busy generating frames
for you, unburdened by file access. SCSI is faster in itself, but also in
that secondary way - freeing up the system to do what you were REALLY doing,
not chatting with hard disks.
noise
noise
Dimex wrote:
>
> I am sorry, but the P3 and the celeron is almost the same thing, except for
> SSE, so I think for a budget-oriented consumer like me, a Celeron is a much
> better value than a K7.
A Pentium II is a better comparison, especially since Celerons having nothing
like the caching architecture of the better PIII's. On chips like this, it
makes a very big difference.
A Celeron may be better "value", but the conversation was about performance.
An Athlon 700 will waste ANY Celeron.
noise
NOYB
Next week you're going to eat those words. :)
The celeron 566 will probably o/c to around 800 MHz.
I'm sure it will beat the pants off of an Athlon 700.
Chip
>
> The celeron 566 will probably o/c to around 800 MHz.
>
> I'm sure it will beat the pants off of an Athlon 700.
Pfft... are you kidding?
One: The celeron has that stupid 66Mhz FSB
Two: Don't you think the Athlon 700 overclocks as well?
Ever hear of a goldfinger device?
Three: A PIII can't beat an Athlon of same clockspeed, how
do you expect a Celeron to compete?
WizardŽ
PIII Coppermind and Celeron's. The Athlon's are ok, but until somebody
actually makes a decent mobo for them, they're still just an inferior chip.
The PIII's overclock like there's no tomorrow as well as the Celerons and
IMHO and in my usage, the PIII's blow the Athlon's out of the water and the
Celeron isn't far behind an Athlon. But then again, that's just MHO, but
I've heard others say the same.
--
WizardŽ
ICQ: 21550487
wiz...@agqx.org
AGQx Home: http://www.agqx.org/
My Home: http://cheez.plasticjesus.org/
Chip <ch...@clanbeowulf.org> wrote in message
news:komD4.15032$624.1...@news.flash.net...
Chip
> OMG! You've got to be kidding me! I've seen and used
both an Athlon and a
> PIII Coppermind and Celeron's.
Athlons overclock with goldfinger devices. Mhz for Mhz
they're faster than P3's. Check the benchmarks. That's why
AMD claims "Fastest Windows Processor". They do have good
motherboards for them now too (unlike the K6 series). The
only thing that Intel MBs have that give them an advantage
is RAMBUS. Athlon MBs will be able to combat that pretty
well with upcoming DDR memory.
I'm an ex Inteller now AMD'er
NOYB
The P!!! and celeron are head and shoulders above the Athlon clock for
clock in Q3A with a GeForce. Hell a celeron 500 with a GeForce DDR
gets higher framerates than an Athlon 750 @ 1024*768 High Quality. I
don't know about you, but that's pretty significant.
A celeron (P!!! core) and an NV15 will be where the smart money's
going this spring.
Andycap
what mother board for the atholon..the new via133 or an old iron gate??
speed for spee K7 and Pii see dam close epesailly when you conside p3 is
much more $$$$$money
as far as overclocked celerons.. well i have a celeron and love it,great
bang for the buck, i over clock it...but i have to run it at a much lower
clock then what it can max out to becuse in the end it just not stable for
more than 30 40 minutes at high speed..and every one has the same problem
when you bring a fsb and a cpu way over spec
you say you can get 200+ mhz out of it but when push come to shove you
really run it right around factory speeds :)
"NOYB" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:2nssdssr22ugqvjhs...@4ax.com...
NOYB
available.
I had two 366 celerons overclocked at 522 MHz for a long time. (Sold
them.) Even in NT. Which is not an overclock friendly OS ran fine at
522 dual.
That system ran practically 24-7 for months, and was probably the best
performance system I've ever owned.
Right now I have a CuMine rig. Of course, it's faster, but I wouldn't
hesitate to tell anyone to purchase a celeron gaming rig.
The BX chipset with a GeForce DDR will whip any Athlon's ass.
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 04:45:31 -0500, "Andycap" <And...@nospam.com>
wrote:
Dimex
Celeron is 66Mhz FSB" argument, because an overclocked celeron usually runs
from 90 to 110Mhz bus BECAUSE it is overclocked. I do not recall saying
anywhere in my posts that a Celeron can outperform a K7, I just said its
performance in common computing tasks that **I** do is close enough to be
insignificant considering the low price of the celeron.
Now, as for the P3 vs. Athlon argument... The Athlon is a better chip in
itself than the P3, however, the P3 will continue to outperform the Athlon
in 90% of applications until AMD moves the L2 cache into the core and makes
it run full-speed instead of 1/3 speed - that's what's hurting Athlon's
performance the most right now. The Athlon DOES however have a much better
FPU than the P3, and that's why it really smokes it in applications like 3D
Studio Max and the like, even despite the slower cache handicap.
--
Dimex.
NOYB <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lb2tdso9dsq142ca2...@4ax.com...
Chip
> The P!!! and celeron are head and shoulders above the
Athlon clock for
> clock in Q3A with a GeForce.
You might want to checkout
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/cpu/athlon_850
/4.shtml
It shows how much faster the Athlons are than P3's. Not a
lot but like I said they're faster. There are a few tests
where the equivalent Mhz P3 beat the Athlon but only by 1fps
or so.
I'm not sure where you got your Intel hype from but as an
eX-Intel user, I'm an Athlon believer. ..... with 3D
Prophet DDR-DVI BTW, so I know first hand how much faster
the Athlon is than P3.
Jorge Morales
fast will it go?
NOYB
That article affirms what I was saying.
The P!!! 800 beat the Athlon 850 in Q3A.
MadDog
I use high quality sound. Voodoo 2 was at 37 fps at 640 x 480. I'm at 42
with geforce at 800x600.
Quite playable.
X
Andre Christian
qicker than the K6-2 450 .news:usTlEJBm$GA.90@cpmsnbbsa04...
Bora Ugurlu
Bora
Andre Christian <gry...@earthlink.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
UNfE4.2474$9m6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Hyper
>
> Hyper <ji...@snip.net> wrote:
>
> >Your Celeron blows monkey nuts compared to his Athlon and you know
> >it
>
> different in price?
Because the original poster said his celeron was faster than someone else's
Athlon
NOYB
Q2 is optimized for 3dNow! instructions. Q2 does not have SSE
instructions.
Q3A has both SSE and 3dNow! instructions. Therefore, it is a better
method of testing CPUs. Not to mention the fact, that Q3A is a more
CPU intensive application.
If you check the scores again. You'll see I'm right you nimrod.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 03:14:48 GMT, "Chip" <ch...@clanbeowulf.org> wrote:
>http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/cpu/athlon_850
>/4.shtml
NOYB
>The P!!! and celeron are head and shoulders above the Athlon
>clock for
>clock in Q3A with a GeForce. Hell a celeron 500 with a
>GeForce DDR
>gets higher framerates than an Athlon 750 @ 1024*768 High
>Quality. I
>don't know about you, but that's pretty significant.
></quote>
>
>You said "head and shoulders" above the Athlon. Since I've
>shown you how Athlons beat P3's in Quake2 lets move on the
>Q3 numbers that shows P3 "head and shoulders" above.
>Sharky Extreme
>
>Athlon 850 105.4fps
>P3 800 105.5fps
>Athlon 800 102.1fps
>
>Even with a better AGP bus the Athlons are right with the
>P3's in Q3 and beat the P3's in Quake2. And look at the
>benchmarks which measure the CPU itself and not dependant
>upon AGP buses, memory speed or the like. The Athlon beats
>the P3. "Head and shoulders above" pfffft. Put down the
>crack pipe.
Once again you fail to understand english.
I said, 1024*768 High Quality!!!
A celeron 450 edges out an Athlon 750 by 2 fps in Q3A with a GeForce
DDR in High Quality.
If you want to talk about raw performance.
An athlon 750 is beat out by 6 fps at 640*480 Fastest settings by a
P!!! 750.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/q3videoroundup2/
Stop trying to twist my words, and you'll see that I never once made
false claims. You're the one trying to avoid the issue.
Pearson
Yes, I know I'd love to own one of them but the point is, to play HL, my
old PII-233 w 64 Mb and Voodoo Banshee is fine. It pushes out 50fps,
it's not even over-clocked (which in my opinion is a waste of time
anyway) and will run Q3 and UT alright as well. It's all I need, so I'm
happy. So why waste money on an Athlon 700 TCivilian Target
Nastard wrote:
>
> > Don't get me wrong, I'm an Intel/nvidia guy with a P-III 750 MHz
> overclocked
> > to 866 MHz, GeForce 256 DDR overclocked, etc. But it seems that people who
> > consider K6-2's and K6-3's don't have their PC's as the altar to which
> their
> > money flows. Just an informed opinion . . .
>
> bzzzzt
>
> I've spent every extra penny on my machine for the last year or so. I ONLY
> use AMD processors.
>
> history:
> k6-2/300
> k6-2/350
> k6-3/450
> athlon/700
>
> this box is the altar to which my cash flows, and it shows. i bet itll
> whoop up on your p3 :)
>
> athlon 700 *coughcough200MHzFSBcoughcough*
> k7m
> 512MB PC100
> Voodoo3 3500
> SBLive! Platinum
> 4pt surround (cambridge)
> maxtor 20gig udma66 7200
> 8x4x32
> 5x dvd
> 48x cdrom
> 20inch monitor
> cable inet
>
> this, of course, excludes periphs
--
Signature files are all well and good but they're no replacement for a
personality!
----
Tadhg Pearson
tad...@bigfoot.com
http://allsaints.findhere.com
ICQ 23337589
Chip
>
> The P!!! 800 beat the Athlon 850 in Q3A.
I'm not sure where you're pulling your numbers from. Read
it again
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/cpu/athlon_850
/4.shtml
Let me quote Sharky's numbers:
Athlon 800 83.9 fps
P3 800 w/100 FSB 81.7fps
P3 800 w/133 FSB 82.2fps
Heck the P3 800 can't beat a Athlon of same Mhz more less an
Athlon 850! The 850 is 87.1fps almost 10% faster than a P3
800. Note these are at 640x480x16 where the graphics card
isn't saturated and its all CPU and FPU limited. At the
higher resolutions the same Mhz P3 catches up mainly due to
better pipelining of the AGP channel than AMD boards. IE
its not totally CPU and FPU at those resolutions, the
inferior AGP is coming into play.
We all make mistakes NOYB, its no biggie. I've made many
too.
Chip
Q3A!
>
> Q2 is optimized for 3dNow! instructions. Q2 does not have
SSE
> instructions.
You'll have to go to the next page to see the Q3 scores =)
> Q3A has both SSE and 3dNow! instructions. Therefore, it
is a better
> method of testing CPUs. Not to mention the fact, that Q3A
is a more
> CPU intensive application.
>
> If you check the scores again. You'll see I'm right you
nimrod.
No need to act childish NOYB. Let me quote you:
<quote>
The P!!! and celeron are head and shoulders above the Athlon
clock for
clock in Q3A with a GeForce. Hell a celeron 500 with a
GeForce DDR
gets higher framerates than an Athlon 750 @ 1024*768 High
Quality. I
don't know about you, but that's pretty significant.
</quote>
You said "head and shoulders" above the Athlon. Since I've
shown you how Athlons beat P3's in Quake2 lets move on the
Q3 numbers that shows P3 "head and shoulders" above.
Sharky Extreme
Athlon 850 105.4fps
P3 800 105.5fps
Athlon 800 102.1fps
Even with a better AGP bus the Athlons are right with the
P3's in Q3 and beat the P3's in Quake2. And look at the
benchmarks which measure the CPU itself and not dependant
upon AGP buses, memory speed or the like. The Athlon beats
the P3. "Head and shoulders above" pfffft. Put down the
crack pipe.
Hey, I tried to be cordial and politely show your error the
first go-round.
Chip
> Once again you fail to understand english.
Heheheh hey what happened to your "head and shoulders" above an Athlon
argument? =)
Ok, lets examine your latest ramblings.
> I said, 1024*768 High Quality!!!
>
> A celeron 450 edges out an Athlon 750 by 2 fps in Q3A with a GeForce
> DDR in High Quality.
Good Lord NOYB, now I KNOW you need serious "help". The Athlon blows
that pathetic Celeron away in every catagory it it ties in one obscure
one, why? Because of the AGP bus you idiot. ... not the CPU. The
P3/Celeron motherboards have a better AGP bus right now. They can
transfer the textures fasters. GeForce drivers have to knock down the
AGP speed to 2x and sometimes 1x to get them to work due to noise on
the Athlon AGP bus.
Look at the lower resolutions where most people play and where the CPU
is more of a factor. Heck just reduce the texture quality and the
Athlon blows away the Celeron at 1024x768 110.6fps for the Athlon
and 86.6 for the Celeron. When you reduce the resolution down to
800x600 then the Celeron ceases to be even in the Athlon's league.
> If you want to talk about raw performance.
>
> An athlon 750 is beat out by 6 fps at 640*480 Fastest settings by a
> P!!! 750.
6fps? That's it? Was that the "head and shoulders" you were talking
about? =)
> Stop trying to twist my words, and you'll see that I never once made
> false claims. You're the one trying to avoid the issue.
Hey you're the one making the stupid statements, I just quote you. =)
Paolo
3D Now tecnology.
I have AMD K6 2 500, 64 Mb RAM, Voodoo 3 2000 and works very well with
Quake3 Arena, Unreal, Test Drive 5, Tomb Raider 3, even at 1024 * 768.
shera
Have you overclocked yoour 500? If so to what? Ace's Hardware has good article
on this. At 1024x768 what are your Q3 frame rates?
Shera
Count Scrofula
You clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Pearson <nos...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:38E25D90...@indigo.ie...
NOYB
>
>> Once again you fail to understand english.
>
>Heheheh hey what happened to your "head and shoulders" above an Athlon
>argument? =)
>Ok, lets examine your latest ramblings.
>
>> I said, 1024*768 High Quality!!!
>>
>> A celeron 450 edges out an Athlon 750 by 2 fps in Q3A with a GeForce
>> DDR in High Quality.
>
> Good Lord NOYB, now I KNOW you need serious "help". The Athlon blows
>that pathetic Celeron away in every catagory it it ties in one obscure
>one, why? Because of the AGP bus you idiot.
I'm an idiot? Why would you buy a CPU that has shitty motherboard
support? Answer that one dumbass.
> ... not the CPU. The
>P3/Celeron motherboards have a better AGP bus right now. They can
>transfer the textures fasters.
Yeah well, RIGHT NOW, the P3 and celeron are better choices.
> GeForce drivers have to knock down the
>AGP speed to 2x and sometimes 1x to get them to work due to noise on
>the Athlon AGP bus.
It's called shitty motherboards.
>Look at the lower resolutions where most people play and where the CPU
>is more of a factor.
Where do you get this, "most people"? Why buy a 700 MHz CPU and a
GeForce DDR to play at 800*600 or lower with low texture quality?
>Heck just reduce the texture quality and the
>Athlon blows away the Celeron at 1024x768 110.6fps for the Athlon
>and 86.6 for the Celeron.
Well then it's not, High Quality.
> When you reduce the resolution down to
>800x600 then the Celeron ceases to be even in the Athlon's league.
What's your point? There's roughly 300 MHz advantage in the Athlon's
favor. Purchase a 566 celeron and OC it to 800 MHz. Then the athlon
fails to be in the celeron's league.
>> If you want to talk about raw performance.
>>
>> An athlon 750 is beat out by 6 fps at 640*480 Fastest settings by a
>> P!!! 750.
>
>6fps? That's it? Was that the "head and shoulders" you were talking
>about? =)
I consider a 5% increase in framerate significant. Especially when
you're dealing with equivalent BUS speeds.
>> Stop trying to twist my words, and you'll see that I never once made
>> false claims. You're the one trying to avoid the issue.
>
>Hey you're the one making the stupid statements, I just quote you. =)
Not! You're the one making shit up. I'd make a statement, regarding
Quake3 performance, and you come back with Quake2 scores. Who GARA
about Quake2 scores?
Chip
blows
> >one, why? Because of the AGP bus you idiot.
>
> I'm an idiot? Why would you buy a CPU that has shitty motherboard
> support? Answer that one dumbass.
Ummm because its hundreds cheaper and as fast as the P3? Sure I have
the money to buy any PC I want but why blow more than you have to?
Everything is give and take. Athlons are the best bang for buck CPU
on the market. Their motherboards lag a bit but look at the numbers.
Even with a second rate AGP bus its still beats or ties a P3.
>
> > ... not the CPU. The
> >P3/Celeron motherboards have a better AGP bus right now. They can
> >transfer the textures fasters.
>
> Yeah well, RIGHT NOW, the P3 and celeron are better choices.
Huh? The P3 and celerons are better choices because:
A.: They cost more
B: The P3 is same speed and celeron is slower
C: They Athlon doesn't need expensive RAMBUS memory and will have
motherboards utilizing DDR RAM very soon.
Athlons are gaining ground on P3's not losing. Why is that? Celerons
are just a joke now.
> > GeForce drivers have to knock down the
> >AGP speed to 2x and sometimes 1x to get them to work due to noise
on
> >the Athlon AGP bus.
>
> It's called shitty motherboards.
Faulty AGP busses doesn't make the motherboard a waste. With the
second generation Athlon motherboards, the AGP is fixed to allow
sidebands and they support PC133 memory. What's shitty is paying as
much for 128Meg of RAMBUS memory as you did for your damn CPU. That's
just plain nuts.
> >Look at the lower resolutions where most people play and where the
CPU
> >is more of a factor.
>
> Where do you get this, "most people"? Why buy a 700 MHz CPU and a
> GeForce DDR to play at 800*600 or lower with low texture quality?
That IS where most people play. I have my 700Mhz Athlon and GeForce
DDR at 800x600x32 all textures etc. If you play 1024 you'll get too
much of a frame drop in Dredworks.
> >Heck just reduce the texture quality and the
> >Athlon blows away the Celeron at 1024x768 110.6fps for the Athlon
> >and 86.6 for the Celeron.
>
> Well then it's not, High Quality.
The Althon blows away the pathetically under powered Celeron in every
catagory until you get into AGP texturing issues. Even then it could
only tie the Athlon at mid 50 fps range which will prove unplayable
when hitting high polygon areas/maps like Dredworks. What moron plays
at that fps when they can play at 800x600 with all options on and have
plenty of poly-crunching GPU/CPU left over to maintain fps?
>
>
> > When you reduce the resolution down to
> >800x600 then the Celeron ceases to be even in the Athlon's league.
>
> What's your point? There's roughly 300 MHz advantage in the
Athlon's
> favor. Purchase a 566 celeron and OC it to 800 MHz. Then the
athlon
> fails to be in the celeron's league.
You don't think the Athlon overclocks? Ever heard of a gold finger
device? Now you're excusing the Celeron's pathetic performance saying
"Ya, but you can overclock it?" BTW, you aren't going to overclock at
566 celeron to 800Mhz without serious reliablility issues. Take it
from an electronic engineer, I know. I don't care if you put a
12watt peltier with massive heatsinks and cooling fans on that
Celeron, you're going to fry it. Likewise, you won't get the bus up
to 133Mhz either. Most Celeron's won't even run reliably at 100Mhz.
FSB.
> >6fps? That's it? Was that the "head and shoulders" you were
talking
> >about? =)
>
> I consider a 5% increase in framerate significant. Especially when
> you're dealing with equivalent BUS speeds.
So you're still sticking with "5% is head and shoulders above an
Athlon"? I just want to make sure here. So does that make an Athlon
a quantum leap beyond a Celeron?
> >> Stop trying to twist my words, and you'll see that I never once
made
> >> false claims. You're the one trying to avoid the issue.
> >
> >Hey you're the one making the stupid statements, I just quote you.
=)
>
> Not! You're the one making shit up. I'd make a statement,
regarding
> Quake3 performance, and you come back with Quake2 scores.
Hey don't get mad at yourself. You're the one that came up with the
P3 is head and shoulders above an Athlon even after I show you the
benchmarks Q2 and Q3. I even showed you the benchmarks by ZD that
show how Mhz for Mhz the Athlon is faster than the P3... especially in
FPU performance. The only place the P3 can make up ground is in
faster motherboards and AGP bus. I don't twist your words, heck I
don't have to. They're twisted enough =)
>Who GARA
> about Quake2 scores?
Oh, I don't know, how about the people playing on the 1039 Quake2
servers =)
Oh BTW, what did I "make up"?
Chip
> bullshit. This post is ONLY in alt.games.quake3. I have yet to see
a benchmark
> where a P3 DOESN'T beat an Athlon in Q3
It depends on you system, Robo. Athlons just recently have
motherboards which "really" enable 4x AGP and sidebanding. Raw
benchmarks show how the Athlon is actually a faster CPU but no thanks
to its AGP motherboard issues and P3's advantageous RAMBUS it usually
shows P3 to be slightly ahead in Q3.
Athlons usually beat P3's in Quake3 benchmarks when they're on a BX
motherboard and have PC100 memory. P3's are even more crippled when
put on those nutty PC100/RAMBUS combo motherboards.
Chip
ch...@clanbeowulf.org
www.clanbewoulf.org
Chip
motherboard
> >> support? Answer that one dumbass.
> >
> >Ummm because its hundreds cheaper
>
>
> cheapest prices at pricewatch.com
>
> Athlon 600 - $152
> P3-600 - $223
How about P3 850 $899 Athlon 850 $699
at pricewatch.com also.
> so that's $70. The P3-600 runs over 800 MHz easily, with default
voltage on a
> Via Apollo Pro 133a mobo.
>
> Athlon 800 - $475
Why does everyone quote "but the Intel x will overclock to x"?
The Athlon 800 overclocks to 1Ghz. I don't see your point.
>
> >and as fast as the P3? Sure I have
> >the money to buy any PC I want but why blow more than you have to?
> >Everything is give and take. Athlons are the best bang for buck
CPU
> >on the market. Their motherboards lag a bit but look at the
numbers.
>
> There is a problem with compatibility, at times. Athlon's darn
good, but they
> lack the chipset to support it fully. Hopefully, that will change.
>
> >Even with a second rate AGP bus its still beats or ties a P3.
>
> ties or finishes just under a P3 in Q3, NOT including the
overclocking
> capability.
Geez, there you go again. What's with this overclocking business.
Does everyone in the freeworld really think the Athlon doesn't
overclock? Is this a conspiracy?
> a celeron doesn't cost more than an Athlon, and has much better
motherboard
> support, as well as being very overclockable.
Oh man, not again. Yes, we all know the celeron overclocks. So does
everything else.
> >B: The P3 is same speed and celeron is slower
>
> the new celerons will be the same speed. In q3, the P3 is faster.
The new celerons won't be the same speed. Especially with Athlon's
ondie cache. I'm confident the Athlon's will not tie the P3's like it
pretty much does now in Q3 but surpass it by a noticable margin.
> >C: They Athlon doesn't need expensive RAMBUS memory and will have
> >motherboards utilizing DDR RAM very soon.
>
> Micron is making the Samurai chipset-based motherboard for the P3's
and
> Celerons. Neither the Celeron nor the P3 need RAMBUS.
They don't need RAMBUS but have you seen the benchmarks with the combo
PC100/RAMBUS motherboards? ouch.
> >Athlons are gaining ground on P3's not losing.
>
> what do you mean by this? As CPU speed increases, the Athlon's
pitifully slow
> L2 cache hinders it. Hopefully the new Athlons will remedy this.
Just around the corner. ... ondie cache.
> >Why is that? Celerons are just a joke now.
>
> Interesting sense of humor you have there. I'm not sure I see
what's so funny.
>
> For $60 I got a CPU that ran 550 MHz and gets me some great
gameplay. That
> extra $100 I saved vs. an Athlon 550 gets me an extra 128MB of RAM.
What is funny is the Celeron's slower FSB and far inferior FPU.
> Dred runs ok for me. I notice that Vertical Vengeance and q3dm18
(shitty map
> anyway) give me some serious lag.
> 86.6 fps is hardly pathetic. Now, take that $100 you saved by
buying teh
> Celeron, and get a GeForce DDR instead of a TNT2 Ultra.
No, 86.6 ISN'T pathetic but NOYB posted two different thoughts in one
sentence. He quoted Celeron 1024x768 86.6fps but that was NOT on high
quality. Then he mentions high quality. That 86.6fps is using
Fastest setting in Q3. If I wanted it to look that pathetic I'd be
playing UT instead of Q3.
> Celeron + DDR will spank the shit out of an Athlon + TNT2Ultra.
You mean Celeron with GeForce DDR will beat Athlon TNT2Ultra.
Celeron's don't and won't support DDR memory .... Athlon's
motherboards will. And if you're speaking equal frequencies on both
Celeron and Athlon, yes the GeForce DDR will give it the advantage
even over Athlon's better FPU.
> >You don't think the Athlon overclocks? Ever heard of a gold finger
> >device? Now you're excusing the Celeron's pathetic performance
saying
> >"Ya, but you can overclock it?" BTW, you aren't going to overclock
at
> >566 celeron to 800Mhz without serious reliablility issues.
>
> really? Looks like Anand and hothardware were able to take it to
800+ with
> default voltage and a shitty little HSF combo.
I couldn't find any such article ... probably just me. However, the
winner of the overclocking contest at hot hardware only got his
celeron 300a to 500 with EXTREME and I mean EXTREME modifications.
> >Take it from an electronic engineer, I know. I don't care if you
put a
> >12watt peltier with massive heatsinks and cooling fans on that
> >Celeron, you're going to fry it.
>
> why? Intel bins their processors. They use higher-powered CPU's to
fill
> low-power CPU orders when necessary. If you aren't upping the
voltage much, and
> you maintain a nice low temperature, and teh CPU may very well be an
> "underclocked" higher-speed processor, enlighten me as to how it
will fry.
Its all in the design. I really doubt Intel will willing thow away
hundreds of dollars per CPU selling a 800 as a 500. Most of the time
after they reroute the defective transistors, they stress the CPU
until it locks and determine what they'll sell it as from that.
When brought past the limit to which it was designed, you're slowly
eating the P and N junctions. In layman's terms, "fry".
> >Most Celeron's won't even run reliably at 100Mhz. FSB.
>
> you are wrong. There are many Celerons that will. and you don't
have to jump
> from a 66 FSB to a 100 FSB. With a clock multiplier as high as the
celeron's,
> you can up to 75 MHz, and get a significant increase, or up to 83
and get a HUGE
> increase.
There really aren't that many Celerons that will handle 100FSB. Sure
you can overclock a little to 75 or 83 but I've had 4 Celerons
personally and non of them could handle 100FSB.
> >
> >> >6fps? That's it? Was that the "head and shoulders" you were
> >talking about? =)
> >>
> >> I consider a 5% increase in framerate significant. Especially
when
> >> you're dealing with equivalent BUS speeds.
>
> those 6 fps will be more than made up for by the purchase of a much
better video
> card.
Better than a GeForce DDR? (That's what was used in testing).
> I restate:
>
> (Celeron + DDR) > (Athlon + TNT2U) - approximately the same price
I don't think anyone was debating you could buy a cheapo CPU and have
cash left for a GeForce DDR. I think the issue at hand was Celeron
speed vs Athlon.