WARNING: DON'T BUY CYRIX. READ THIS NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Francesco Ferrara from ITALY

unread,

Jul 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/7/96

to

I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for super-pipelined Pentium code.
And the results are:

Intel Pentium 133, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
CPU: P132
FPU: 32.6 MFlops
Cache: 150 MB/s

Cyrix 6x86 166+, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
CPU: P110
FPU: 8.7 MFlops
Cache: 180 MB/s

Intel Pentium 200, Intel Endeavour, 512PBC.
CPU: P198
FPU: 56.8 MFlops
Cache: 182 MB/s

Cyrix P-Rating is based on CPUmark 32, but this test isn't super-pipelined
Pentium optimized.
CPUmark is really a Cache test.
Results on 512K motherboard are very high compared with systems with faster
cpus but with 256K cache.
DON'T BUY CYRIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Turbo95 1.3 results (ftp://ftp.aerre.it/pub/utility/turbo95.zip)
CPU:P133 FPU:38.2Mflops Cache:155MB/s Svga:54FPS Disk:3.0MB/s

Jason Dean Malone

unread,

Jul 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/7/96

to

fr...@aerre.it (Francesco Ferrara from ITALY) wrote:
> I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for super-pipelined Pentium code.
> And the results are:
>
>Intel Pentium 133, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>CPU: P132
>FPU: 32.6 MFlops
>Cache: 150 MB/s
>
>Cyrix 6x86 166+, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>CPU: P110
>FPU: 8.7 MFlops
>Cache: 180 MB/s
>
>Intel Pentium 200, Intel Endeavour, 512PBC.
>CPU: P198
>FPU: 56.8 MFlops
>Cache: 182 MB/s
>
> Cyrix P-Rating is based on CPUmark 32, but this test isn't super-pipelined
>Pentium optimized.
> CPUmark is really a Cache test.
> Results on 512K motherboard are very high compared with systems with faster
>cpus but with 256K cache.
> DON'T BUY CYRIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is your "!" Key stuck?

Lin Shawn R

unread,

Jul 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/7/96

to

Francesco Ferrara from ITALY (fr...@aerre.it) wrote:
: I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for super-pipelined Pentium code.
: And the results are:

: Intel Pentium 133, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
: CPU: P132
: FPU: 32.6 MFlops
: Cache: 150 MB/s

: Cyrix 6x86 166+, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
: CPU: P110
: FPU: 8.7 MFlops
: Cache: 180 MB/s

Wait a minute... why do you have this CPU set for 110MHz? Isn't the
P166+ a 133MHz chip? Maybe that's the problem.

: Intel Pentium 200, Intel Endeavour, 512PBC.

: CPU: P198
: FPU: 56.8 MFlops
: Cache: 182 MB/s

--
Shawn Lin "Sure I like cats... they taste just like chicken."
srl...@nic.smsu.edu Springfield MO 65804 1-417-883-2169
sli...@mail.orion.org http://science.smsu.edu/~lin ao...@detroit.freenet.org

Dennis Roark

unread,

Jul 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/7/96

to

Now my memory may be wrong on this, but I thought that this Cyrix chip
came with the secondary cache (L2) inside the chip but the math
coprocessor not in the chip. I thought with this chip you were to use
a separate math coprocessor. The idea was that it is more efficient
to include the L2 cache which is always used and leave the coprocessor
at a distance. Now your benchmarks are testing the FPU (the
coprocessor). If I am right on what Cyrix has done, of course the
cyrix will look bad in your benchmarks. How about using Wintune 95 or
some other benchmark that tests more than the the FPU! You have
created a straw man and proceeded to knock him over, and your
criticism of the chip does not hold up.

fr...@aerre.it (Francesco Ferrara from ITALY) wrote:

> I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for super-pipelined Pentium code.
> And the results are:

>Intel Pentium 133, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>CPU: P132
>FPU: 32.6 MFlops
>Cache: 150 MB/s

>Cyrix 6x86 166+, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>CPU: P110
>FPU: 8.7 MFlops
>Cache: 180 MB/s

>Intel Pentium 200, Intel Endeavour, 512PBC.

>CPU: P198
>FPU: 56.8 MFlops
>Cache: 182 MB/s

> Cyrix P-Rating is based on CPUmark 32, but this test isn't super-pipelined

>Pentium optimized.
> CPUmark is really a Cache test.
> Results on 512K motherboard are very high compared with systems with faster
>cpus but with 256K cache.
> DON'T BUY CYRIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Turbo95 1.3 results (ftp://ftp.aerre.it/pub/utility/turbo95.zip)
>CPU:P133 FPU:38.2Mflops Cache:155MB/s Svga:54FPS Disk:3.0MB/s

---------------------------------
Dennis Roark
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Sioux Falls
Sioux Falls, SD
---------------------------------

dave

unread,

Jul 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/7/96

to

fr...@aerre.it (Francesco Ferrara from ITALY) wrote:

> I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for super-pipelined Pentium code.
> And the results are:

>Intel Pentium 133, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>CPU: P132
>FPU: 32.6 MFlops
>Cache: 150 MB/s

>Cyrix 6x86 166+, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>CPU: P110
>FPU: 8.7 MFlops
>Cache: 180 MB/s

>Intel Pentium 200, Intel Endeavour, 512PBC.
>CPU: P198
>FPU: 56.8 MFlops
>Cache: 182 MB/s

> Cyrix P-Rating is based on CPUmark 32, but this test isn't super-pipelined
>Pentium optimized.
> CPUmark is really a Cache test.
> Results on 512K motherboard are very high compared with systems with faster
>cpus but with 256K cache.
> DON'T BUY CYRIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Turbo95 1.3 results (ftp://ftp.aerre.it/pub/utility/turbo95.zip)
>CPU:P133 FPU:38.2Mflops Cache:155MB/s Svga:54FPS Disk:3.0MB/s

how do the two cpu's compare running win95, win nt, win3.x, os/2, and
all the other os's and their apps?

Jeff Fox

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

I don't really know if the Cyrix chip is inferior to the Intel chip or
not. I have not run any bench marks or other tests, but I'll tell you
what I do know about it from personal experience.

At work I have a Pentium 100, with 24 meg of ram. It has an old
Trident 1 meg video card. I use it to play Quake Deathmatch under
Windows 95, and it runs just fine. The game play is very smooth and
the graphics are fine in 320x200.
At home I have a Cyrix -120 with 32 meg of ram. I have an old Cirrus
Logic based 1 meg video card. When I run Quake under Windows 95 it is
playable, but noticably slower than the machine I use at work. I
would not want to play deathmatch on this machine because I think it
would be too slow.

My Cyrix chip is fine for running just about everything under Windows
95, but since I want to play Quake, my next processor will be an
Intel, ( or something with a *proven* FPU).

Craig Murch

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

Um, I think you'll find that this has been mentioned before. Many times,
in fact. We all know that 486s/5x86s/6x86s all suck at Quake. I just
wish ID would do a 486/5x86/6x86 optimized version...

Craig

M.B.

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

On Sun, 07 Jul 1996 12:37:04 GMT, fr...@aerre.it (Francesco Ferrara
from ITALY) wrote:

> I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for super-pipelined Pentium code.
> And the results are:
>
>Intel Pentium 133, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>CPU: P132
>FPU: 32.6 MFlops
>Cache: 150 MB/s
>
>Cyrix 6x86 166+, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>CPU: P110
>FPU: 8.7 MFlops
>Cache: 180 MB/s

M.B. Replies:
You mean to tell me that the 6x86 166+ has a lower MFlop
performance than my 486dx2/66? I think you may have messed this one
up, my 486 gets more than twice that FPU rating you post.

ALX

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

In article <4rp5o3$a...@server2.dakota.net>, dro...@dakota.net (Dennis Roark)
wrote:

> Now my memory may be wrong on this, but I thought that this Cyrix chip
> came with the secondary cache (L2) inside the chip but the math
> coprocessor not in the chip. I thought with this chip you were to use
> a separate math coprocessor. The idea was that it is more efficient

I think you're referring to the NextGen (sp?) chips (now owned by AMD).
These had the L2 cache controller in the processor and no built-in
math-co.

->ALX<-

Fuchi

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

fr...@aerre.it (Francesco Ferrara from ITALY) wrote:

> I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for super-pipelined Pentium code.
> And the results are:

> DON'T BUY CYRIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Turbo95 1.3 results (ftp://ftp.aerre.it/pub/utility/turbo95.zip)
>CPU:P133 FPU:38.2Mflops Cache:155MB/s Svga:54FPS Disk:3.0MB/s

A liar has found a way to cheat users?

Fuchi ... who loves Cyrix's innovations

tms...@flinthills.com

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

jf...@iadfw.net (Jeff Fox) wrote:
>At work I have a Pentium 100, with 24 meg of ram. It has an old
>Trident 1 meg video card. I use it to play Quake Deathmatch under
>Windows 95, and it runs just fine. The game play is very smooth and
>the graphics are fine in 320x200.
>At home I have a Cyrix -120 with 32 meg of ram. I have an old Cirrus
>Logic based 1 meg video card. When I run Quake under Windows 95 it is
>playable, but noticably slower than the machine I use at work. I
>would not want to play deathmatch on this machine because I think it
>would be too slow.

Question: is this the Cyrix 5x86 (which runs in a 486 board) or the
6x86; they are two very different animals, if you have the Cyrix
5x86/120, it runs about like a Pent. 80 (if such a thing existed)

If this is the 6x86 though, that's a different story.

Chris.

Doug Flere

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

In article <4rp5o3$a...@server2.dakota.net>, dro...@dakota.net says...

>
>Now my memory may be wrong on this, but I thought that this Cyrix chip
>came with the secondary cache (L2) inside the chip but the math
>coprocessor not in the chip.

Wrong. L2 on mainboard. Math co-processor in CPU chip.

>I thought with this chip you were to use a separate math coprocessor.

>The idea was that it is more efficient to include the L2 cache which is

>always used and leave the coprocessor at a distance.

Where did you get this from? What kind of distance? Then nearest NexGen
fab plant?

>Now your benchmarks are testing the FPU (the
>coprocessor). If I am right on what Cyrix has done, of course the
>cyrix will look bad in your benchmarks. How about using Wintune 95 or
>some other benchmark that tests more than the the FPU! You have
>created a straw man and proceeded to knock him over, and your
>criticism of the chip does not hold up.
>

Your argument is, at best, half-true for the discontinued NexGen chips without
the floating point units. You don't know what you are talking about when
it comes to the Cyrix chips unfortunately.

>---------------------------------
>Dennis Roark
>Dept. of Computer Science
>University of Sioux Falls
>Sioux Falls, SD
>---------------------------------
>

DJF

Patrick Libuda

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

In article <4rob4u$e...@cleopatra.telnetwork.it>, fr...@aerre.it (Francesco Ferrara from ITALY) says:
>
> I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for super-pipelined Pentium code.
> And the results are:
>

>Intel Pentium 133, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>CPU: P132
>FPU: 32.6 MFlops
>Cache: 150 MB/s
>
>Cyrix 6x86 166+, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>CPU: P110
>FPU: 8.7 MFlops
>Cache: 180 MB/s
>

>Intel Pentium 200, Intel Endeavour, 512PBC.
>CPU: P198
>FPU: 56.8 MFlops
>Cache: 182 MB/s
>
> Cyrix P-Rating is based on CPUmark 32, but this test isn't super-pipelined
>Pentium optimized.
> CPUmark is really a Cache test.
> Results on 512K motherboard are very high compared with systems with faster
>cpus but with 256K cache.

> DON'T BUY CYRIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Turbo95 1.3 results (ftp://ftp.aerre.it/pub/utility/turbo95.zip)
>CPU:P133 FPU:38.2Mflops Cache:155MB/s Svga:54FPS Disk:3.0MB/s
>

When you want game you can (maybe even should) buy cyrix. The only
advantyge of the pentium is the floating point unit which, as you say,
is a lot faster. BUT if you only play under DOS you might never need
your floating point thing.

exeptions: Falcon 3.0x, Ef2000 and a few more.

Richard Uy

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

On Sun, 07 Jul 1996 12:37:04 GMT, fr...@aerre.it (Francesco Ferrara
from ITALY) wrote:

Hi Frank,
Honestly speaking, I'm a user of Pentium; But I think if someone
seeking a less expensive alternative to Pentium, Cyrix 686 is OK in
case he or she should accept the compatibility problem (some reports
says Triton chip set is not very good to Cyrix, and the performance
can be raise 3to 5% when using non-trition chips MB) and low FPU
speed, right?

But if Pentium is quite the same price as Cyrix in the same grade, I
will perfer Intel (Oh god! I hope that this is not bias), because I
THINK it at least can keep me out of troubles. And surely I believe
it is not the false of poor design Cyrix chip.

Prowler

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

pli...@uni-muenster.de (Patrick Libuda) wrote:

>When you want game you can (maybe even should) buy cyrix

Ummm excuse me but the Cyrix is faster at most Real World Aplications
lets see....Word Procesors, Spreadsheets, Netscape ect.....not just
games.

The place that Cyrix slows down is high end graphics progeams like
Raytrace, CAD ect.....times are about 30% longer with the Cyrix, thats
the people who need the fast FPU.

>The only advantyge of the pentium is the floating point unit which, as you say,
>is a lot faster. BUT if you only play under DOS you might never need
>your floating point thing.

Your operating System is not what is determining if your FPU is using
long strings of NON-INTERGERS (Cyrix does fine with mixed sets and
only runs slower at long lines of constant non-integer functions)
Windows or Dos...its the SOFTWARE your Running not the OS that
determins of you use the FPU and how your FPU is used

>exeptions: Falcon 3.0x

WFT??? Falcon 3.0 yea it uses a MATH CO_PROCESOR, but for the love
of pete, what is it doing here in the "You might want a Pentium"
stack.....hell the damn thing runs like greased lightning on a
486DX2/66 and many people (Pentium and Cyrix users alike) have
complained that it runs TOO FAST on their new systems. Lets remember
that Cyrix has a good co-proc, its just not as fast as a Pentium at
SOME operations

> Ef2000 and a few more.

When is the last time you saw a complaint about how EF2000 is too slow
on my Cyrix.......never huh...thats because EF2000 doesnt use the FPU
the way the ONLY GAME that is noticably slower on a cyrix does...and
that game as we all know is QUAKE...other than quake, there isnt a
game out that needs a "true Pentium FPU" to run well.

The only problems Ive seen is when people try to run EF2000 through
Win95, once you run it in dos mode it Zoooms

--
Michael Baldi Though it take a thousand years
mba...@cyberspy.com we will be FREE! --G'Kar

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

On 8 Jul 1996 13:28:21 GMT, pli...@uni-muenster.de (Patrick Libuda)
wrote:

>
>When you want game you can (maybe even should) buy cyrix. The only
>advantyge of the pentium is the floating point unit which, as you say,
>is a lot faster. BUT if you only play under DOS you might never need
>your floating point thing.
>
>exeptions: Falcon 3.0x, Ef2000 and a few more.

Er.. like Quake.

Why can't women remember to leave the toilet seat up?

Leszek Pawlowicz

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

Hmmm, let me see ... Every test lab in creation says that Cyrix is
equal to or faster than Pentium, but now somebody whose credentials
and methodology I know nothing about says that a Cyrix is slower than
a 486DX-66. Gee, I wonder who has more credibility? I know who has
an inflated opinion of his technical abilities ....

Leszek Pawlowicz

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

I think it's your graphics card that's responsible - I have a Cyrix
120 system with an STB Powergraph 64 card with 2 MB, and Quake runs
unnaturally smoothly at 320x200, and almost as well at higher
resolutions.

Daniel Tracy

unread,

Jul 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/8/96

to

Francesco Ferrara from ITALY wrote:
>
> I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for super-pipelined Pentium code.
> And the results are:
>
> Intel Pentium 133, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
> CPU: P132
> FPU: 32.6 MFlops
> Cache: 150 MB/s
>
> Cyrix 6x86 166+, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
> CPU: P110
> FPU: 8.7 MFlops
> Cache: 180 MB/s
>
> Intel Pentium 200, Intel Endeavour, 512PBC.
> CPU: P198
> FPU: 56.8 MFlops
> Cache: 182 MB/s
>
> Cyrix P-Rating is based on CPUmark 32, but this test isn't super-pipelined
> Pentium optimized.
> CPUmark is really a Cache test.
> Results on 512K motherboard are very high compared with systems with faster
> cpus but with 256K cache.
> DON'T BUY CYRIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Turbo95 1.3 results (ftp://ftp.aerre.it/pub/utility/turbo95.zip)
> CPU:P133 FPU:38.2Mflops Cache:155MB/s Svga:54FPS Disk:3.0MB/s

NOW you tell me! I have a Cyrix 686-133+ and I get only 20fps in Quake
due to its low FPU performance...

Magic

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

Funny how, I got the same FPU mark 8.8 MFlops for my cyrix p166+ from
Turbo95 too. But I wouldn't trust that mark it's way too low. Cyrix FPU on
Turbo95 is almost 400% lower than intel, I don't buy that. The result is
not in congruant with other test which show Cyrix is at most 40% lower in
FPU then intel.

Anybody know who make this Turbo95, someone from intel?

Magic

In article <4rq0qp$f...@news.mcn.net>, grnn...@mcn.net says...

>On Sun, 07 Jul 1996 12:37:04 GMT, fr...@aerre.it (Francesco Ferrara

>from ITALY) wrote:

>> I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for
super-pipelined Pentium code.
>> And the results are:

>>Intel Pentium 133, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>>CPU: P132
>>FPU: 32.6 MFlops
>>Cache: 150 MB/s

>>Cyrix 6x86 166+, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>>CPU: P110
>>FPU: 8.7 MFlops
>>Cache: 180 MB/s

Magic

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

In article <4rob4u$e...@cleopatra.telnetwork.it>, fr...@aerre.it says...

> DON'T BUY CYRIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Turbo95 1.3 results (ftp://ftp.aerre.it/pub/utility/turbo95.zip)
>CPU:P133 FPU:38.2Mflops Cache:155MB/s Svga:54FPS Disk:3.0MB/s

If there's not Cyrix and AMD, P166 will still be selling at 700 and after
you bought that P166 at $700 for six months, intel will discontinue it and
sell you the PPRO at $1,000 and after you bought the PPRO at 1000 for three
months, intel will discontinue the PPRO and sell you the P7 or PPPRO at
$2,000 and the story goes on and on and on. History is the proof of it?
I'm neither pro-Cyrix, nor pro-AMD but pro-Choice.

Magic

Jon Trickey

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

On 8 Jul 1996 13:28:21 GMT, pli...@uni-muenster.de (Patrick Libuda)
wrote:

>In article <4rob4u$e...@cleopatra.telnetwork.it>, fr...@aerre.it (Francesco Ferrara from ITALY) says:
>>
>> I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for super-pipelined Pentium code.
>> And the results are:
>>
>>Intel Pentium 133, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>>CPU: P132
>>FPU: 32.6 MFlops
>>Cache: 150 MB/s
>>
>>Cyrix 6x86 166+, ASUS P55TP4XE, 256PBC, 32Mb
>>CPU: P110
>>FPU: 8.7 MFlops
>>Cache: 180 MB/s
>>

>>Intel Pentium 200, Intel Endeavour, 512PBC.
>>CPU: P198
>>FPU: 56.8 MFlops
>>Cache: 182 MB/s
>>
>> Cyrix P-Rating is based on CPUmark 32, but this test isn't super-pipelined
>>Pentium optimized.
>> CPUmark is really a Cache test.
>> Results on 512K motherboard are very high compared with systems with faster
>>cpus but with 256K cache.

>> DON'T BUY CYRIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Turbo95 1.3 results (ftp://ftp.aerre.it/pub/utility/turbo95.zip)
>>CPU:P133 FPU:38.2Mflops Cache:155MB/s Svga:54FPS Disk:3.0MB/s
>>
>
>
>

>When you want game you can (maybe even should) buy cyrix. The only
>advantyge of the pentium is the floating point unit which, as you say,
>is a lot faster. BUT if you only play under DOS you might never need
>your floating point thing.
>
>exeptions: Falcon 3.0x, Ef2000 and a few more.

Add Quake to your list too.

I have done extensive testing of the Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and the Intel
P150 in the exact same system (I just swapped CPU's) and the P150+ is
impressive (just a hair faster) as long as applications that use FP
math are avoided. However, many newer applications and games are
taking advantage of FP math, and the Cyrix REALLY SUCKS on these apps.
Since Direct 3D uses FP math and I belive most developers will flock
to Direct 3D, DO NOT GET A CYRIX IF YOU LIKE TO PLAY GAMES! I would
expect almost every games with 3D graphics will use FP math within the
next year.

Real world results of the Cyrix:
Quake Runs 40% SLOWER, and Direct 3D demos averages 35% SLOWER.

Belive me, I'm not making this up, I just want others to avoid the
mistake I made in purchasing the Cyrix. I feel like I got burned real
bad on it now. Since I love to play games I sold my Cyrix, bit my
tongue, and bought an Intel. As much as I would like to see the Intel
monopoly broken, the Cyrix 6x86 is NOT the one to do it yet.
t every games with 3D graphics will use FP math within the next year.

Real world results of the Cyrix:
Quake Runs 40% SLOWER, and Direct 3D demos averages 35% SLOWER.

Belive me, I'm not making this up, I just want others to avoid the
mistake I made in purchasing the Cyrix. I feel like I got burned real
bad on it now. Since I love to play games I sold my Cyrix, bit my
tongue, and bought an Intel. As much as I would like to see the Intel
Monopoly broken, the Cyrix 6x86 is NOT the one to do it.

BTW - I head quake really SCREAMS on a Pentium Pro 200.

Dave Potts

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

Alex Celic wrote:
>
> Doesn't Quake use FPU? I think it is so... that's the reson why your
> Cyrix plays it slower than Intel - Cyrix's FPU is inferrior to the
> Intel's

All 3D games should be using the FPU since the 3D calculations
are very math intensive and require the persision of floating
point. You can get away with using double word integer emulated
floating point but you add quite a bit of overhead to do this
and it ususally isn't worth it. If you pick up any book on 3D
modeling, it will express all of the 6 degrees of freedom algorithms
and they are all quite extensive. Even games like Duke 3D and
Decent are more then likely using the FPU for many calculations but
not as much as Quake. I forsee that games like Quake and Pray will
require high thruput from the FPU causing the Cyrix chips to perform
not as well as the Intel counterparts.

Dave

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Potts Views and Beliefs are my own, and do not
Lucent Technologies represent Lucent Technologies in any way
(Bell Labs Innovations) shape or form.
po...@aloft.att.com

Alex Celic

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

In article <4rp5o3$a...@server2.dakota.net>, dro...@dakota.net (Dennis Roark) writes:
|> Now my memory may be wrong on this, but I thought that this Cyrix chip
|> came with the secondary cache (L2) inside the chip but the math

|> coprocessor not in the chip. I thought with this chip you were to use
|> a separate math coprocessor.

Actually - no, the co-processor is built-in, but by far inferior to the
Intel one. I don't think Cyrix ever claimed ther FPU was faster than
Intels'... the P166+ rating was based not on the FPU intensive
benchs.

So, if you need a lot of FPU, really don't buy Cyrix. Otherwise, it's
worth a look.

Cheers, alex.

Alex Celic

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

Doesn't Quake use FPU? I think it is so... that's the reson why your
Cyrix plays it slower than Intel - Cyrix's FPU is inferrior to the
Intel's

Cheers, alex.

Maciej Wichrowski

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to mac...@alcatel.es

Message for those of you who mention Quake!

Alex Celic wrote:
>
> Doesn't Quake use FPU? I think it is so... that's the reson why your
> Cyrix plays it slower than Intel - Cyrix's FPU is inferrior to the
> Intel's

now quake use some 32bit single floating point variables but final will
not: as people said [everything]"in later version will be replaced by
some fixed point number, as is typical in DOS games (because the floating
point unit of Intels just amazingly sucks)" (qspec31_3.html)

And guess which processor will be better: Cyrix for $250 or Intel for
$500? (6x86 133 p166+, 166 respectively).

Maciej

Maciej Wichrowski < mac...@alcatel.es > Information Systems Department
Alcatel Polska
POLAND, Warszawa, Marsa 56, tel(48 22) 15 49 85, ext. 149, 197

Dennis Roark

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

Yes, you are correct. My mistake. I was thinking of the NexGen chip.

al...@par.univie.ac.at (Alex Celic) wrote:

>Cheers, alex.

Stephen L. Hales

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

Craig Murch wrote:

> Um, I think you'll find that this has been mentioned before. Many > times,
> in fact. We all know that 486s/5x86s/6x86s all suck at Quake. I just
> wish ID would do a 486/5x86/6x86 optimized version...
>
> Craig

I run Quake at 640x480 on my Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and it runs beautifully.
Maybe you better check your facts before post an ignorant message.

Steve

Daniel Tracy

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

James Wall wrote:

>
> On Tue, 09 Jul 1996 22:25:17 -0700, "Stephen L. Hales"
> <hal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>
> >I run Quake at 640x480 on my Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and it runs beautifully.
> >Maybe you better check your facts before post an ignorant message.
>

> Hmm ... how much RAM do you have, and what graphics card? I played a
> 3 machine Quake DM last weekend, all machines had 16MB RAM and S3
> graphics cards ... my P90 absolutely slaughtered the 5x86 133 and 6x86
> P120+ I played against for rendering speed. Easily 10fps faster in
> 320x200/240.
>

Sorry, but don't cloud your judgement of what 'beautifully' means by
being defensive. I have a 686-120+ w/ 32MB RAM, S3 video, top-notch
hardware (other than the 686 :( ). I get 20 fps at 320x200 VGA! 640x480?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Not a chance! I don't want to have to pay for a Pentium
just for Quake (and maybe some ray-tracing), though, so I'll wait for the
Pentium Pro to come down in price.

> --FI N|
> alp...@hunterlink.net.au
> the cute pariah
> Newcastle.Australia

Ralph Evans

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

>When you want game you can (maybe even should) buy cyrix. The only
>advantyge of the pentium is the floating point unit which, as you say,
>is a lot faster. BUT if you only play under DOS you might never need
>your floating point thing.

>exeptions: Falcon 3.0x, Ef2000 and a few more.

Ever heard of a little game called Quake? For us 3d action folkeys,
I think that fp is a bit of a necessity.
_____
!!--!! /-\ !
__ _ .
! !O" ! _ !/
! ! \ ! !_ !\
(HaT TRick)
Play me at H2H 714-572-D00M (572-3966) or at
Hotel Calif.: 714 995-3966
HTTP://users.aol.com/ralphevans/doom.htm
Hatmax.wad: our Friday Night net group's 30 favorite dmatch levels.

Ralph Evans

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

les...@primenet.com (Leszek Pawlowicz) wrote:

Every test lab? Oh come on. I've followed it closely in the nerd
zines and it is generally considered comparable but in the
comprehensive tests the Pent. comes out a little ahead. New games
using the fp are going to be a problem for cyrix.

James Jeffrey Benjamin

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

Craig Murch (cg...@cc.newcastle.edu.au) wrote:

: Jeff Fox wrote:
: Um, I think you'll find that this has been mentioned before. Many times,
: in fact. We all know that 486s/5x86s/6x86s all suck at Quake. I just
: wish ID would do a 486/5x86/6x86 optimized version...

For the math intensive calculations done in Quake, ID had to bring in the
FPU to do them. Doing a 6x86 version or similar would require using the
FPU less and the end result would probably be much like it is now. :-) Sorry.
A 486/5x86 version? When Doom came out, the 486 was already obsolete. Now
you want a next generation game to run on a system 2 generations behind?
Some how I don't see that happening. However, I can probably say the ID
will streamline routines to make them as fast as possible. But to make it
playable on a slow system is nota good idea. Besides, what's wrong with
the version that's out now? A 486/100 with 16 megs ram at 320x200 can
play it just fine. (you don't have enough ram? C'mon! 4 megs costs $26
mail order!! EDO 4 megs is $29!)

Jonathan Hoof

unread,

Jul 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/9/96

to

What compatability problem? I use a Triton Chipset Motherboard (tyan
Titan III) and get scores like 80.6fps Doom 1 -timedemo demo3, 98.6
Winstone 96 (win 3.1, 64Mb memory, 16MB of Vcache on Matrox Millenium) and
a 200fps with 3Dbench.

I have run many apps/OSes (win95, winNT 3.51, win3.11 for workgroups, OS/2
Warp) (wordperfect 6.0, winstone 96/32, Winbench 96) (Doom, Quake, Duke3d,
Galactic Civilization I, Warbirds, etc) (Borland C++ for OS/2 2.0, Borland
C++ for win3.1/DOS/Win32 4.5, Watcom 10.5 C++)

No problems at all specific to the Cyrix 6x86. Did you know that the
Pentium is not 100% compatable with the i486? There are a few
differences. Does anyone cara?

-Jonathan Hoof
ho...@agora.rdrop.com

PS: Try compiling Turbo95 1.3 benchmark for 6x86. Oh, you can't? Then
why compare? Of course code fine tuned for a particular processor is
going to have an edge. Show numbers of non-optimized code alongside the
ones for optimized code nextime. Optimization for the 6x86 is not the
same as Optimization for the Pentium. In fact, the 6x86 tends to run code
optimized for the 486 faster than code optimized for the Pentium, from
what I've heard. Haven't done the tests myself, so Ican't be sure (6x86's
better architecture allows both pipelines to be used without all the
tricks that the Pentium allows, which often includes adding extra
instructions, which is why the 6x86 is slower, with all the extra
instructions, the 6x86 effectively runs at Pentium speeds, as opposed to
faster).

Richard Uy (r...@hknet.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 07 Jul 1996 12:37:04 GMT, fr...@aerre.it (Francesco Ferrara
: from ITALY) wrote:

: Hi Frank,
: Honestly speaking, I'm a user of Pentium; But I think if someone
: seeking a less expensive alternative to Pentium, Cyrix 686 is OK in
: case he or she should accept the compatibility problem (some reports
: says Triton chip set is not very good to Cyrix, and the performance
: can be raise 3to 5% when using non-trition chips MB) and low FPU
: speed, right?

: But if Pentium is quite the same price as Cyrix in the same grade, I
: will perfer Intel (Oh god! I hope that this is not bias), because I
: THINK it at least can keep me out of troubles. And surely I believe
: it is not the false of poor design Cyrix chip.

: > I have compiled Turbo95 1.3 benchmark with option for super-pipelined Pentium code.

: >

Jason Dean Malone

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

Maciej Wichrowski <mac...@alcatel.es> wrote:
>Message for those of you who mention Quake!
>
>Alex Celic wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't Quake use FPU? I think it is so... that's the reson why your
>> Cyrix plays it slower than Intel - Cyrix's FPU is inferrior to the
>> Intel's
>
>now quake use some 32bit single floating point variables but final will
>not: as people said [everything]"in later version will be replaced by
>some fixed point number, as is typical in DOS games (because the floating
>point unit of Intels just amazingly sucks)" (qspec31_3.html)

The final version of Quake will use FPU.
Email the guys at ID if you at disbelief.

James Wall

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

On Tue, 09 Jul 1996 22:25:17 -0700, "Stephen L. Hales"
<hal...@goodnet.com> wrote:

>I run Quake at 640x480 on my Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and it runs beautifully.
>Maybe you better check your facts before post an ignorant message.

Hmm ... how much RAM do you have, and what graphics card? I played a
3 machine Quake DM last weekend, all machines had 16MB RAM and S3
graphics cards ... my P90 absolutely slaughtered the 5x86 133 and 6x86
P120+ I played against for rendering speed. Easily 10fps faster in
320x200/240.

Marcus A. Spears

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

Daniel Tracy wrote:
> Sorry, but don't cloud your judgement of what 'beautifully' means by
> being defensive. I have a 686-120+ w/ 32MB RAM, S3 video, top-notch
> hardware (other than the 686 :( ). I get 20 fps at 320x200 VGA! 640x480?
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Not a chance! I don't want to have to pay for a Pentium
> just for Quake (and maybe some ray-tracing), though, so I'll wait for the
> Pentium Pro to come down in price.

Did you know that the Pentium Pro is actually SLOWER than the Pentium for 16-bit
applications (like most DOS games)? Just wanted to make sure you knew.

And how do you find out your frame rate in Quake? If it's in any of the README
files, either I'm not looking closely enough or it isn't in there.

FWIW: On my Pentium 133, with a Diamond Stealth Video 2001 {PCI, 2 megs DRAM} card,
it's fine in most modes up to 360x400 (or whatever). Above that, it's so slow it's
unplayable.

Dave Glue

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

On Tue, 09 Jul 1996 22:25:17 -0700, "Stephen L. Hales"
<hal...@goodnet.com> wrote:

>Craig Murch wrote:
>
>> Um, I think you'll find that this has been mentioned before. Many > times,
>> in fact. We all know that 486s/5x86s/6x86s all suck at Quake. I just
>> wish ID would do a 486/5x86/6x86 optimized version...
>>

>> Craig

>
>I run Quake at 640x480 on my Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and it runs beautifully.
>Maybe you better check your facts before post an ignorant message.

Maybe you better define "beautifully" for us. The _facts_ show that
the Cyrix runs Quake at about half the frame rate of equivalent
Pentiums. Get a clue.

Tim Kingsbury

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

In article <4ruo9g$6...@server2.dakota.net>, dro...@dakota.net says...

>
>Yes, you are correct. My mistake. I was thinking of the NexGen chip.
>

>>Actually - no, the co-processor is built-in, but by far inferior to the

>>Intel one. I don't think Cyrix ever claimed ther FPU was faster than
>>Intels'... the P166+ rating was based not on the FPU intensive
>>benchs.
>

You're right, it shouldn't be as good as Intel. I will say this though. I just
upgraded from a 486-66 to a Cyrix 5x86 120, and I am quite satisfied for my
$200. My old motherboard would not accept the Pentium Overdrive chip, and the
Cyrix has proven to be a solid alternative. Integer performance is faster than
a Pentium 90. Better and cheaper than the Pentium Overdrive 83.

Quake is quite playable with this chip. It runs a little better than Hexen did
on the old 486-66. It certainly can't hang with the Pentium Pro 200 that I
have at work, but it is still very entertaining. You just can't run at high
resolution. For the money, it is well worth it.

If you have an old VESA 486 machine, I highly recommend this $200 upgrade.
It's a cheap way to extend the life of your machine for another year or two.

Tim Kingsbury
Objix

Kyle Klukas

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

Marcus A. Spears wrote:

snip

> Did you know that the Pentium Pro is actually SLOWER than the Pentium for 16-bit
> applications (like most DOS games)? Just wanted to make sure you knew.
>

Just so you know, most dos games made in the last three years (including
Doom and Quake) use 32 bit extenders and are 32 bit apps.

Kyle

Antti Jaatinen

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

>Craig Murch wrote:

> wish ID would do a 486/5x86/6x86 optimized version...

ie. use integer math instead of floating point calculations (math
processor intensive). Yes, Cyrix 166's FPU works at about P90's
speed.

- Crinoid / Inside Informatics 42?
* Cyrix Instead! *
cri...@inside.pp.sci.fi +358-40-5102352 (GSM)

ALX

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

In article <31E33E...@goodnet.com>, "Stephen L. Hales" <hal...@goodnet.com>
wrote:

> I run Quake at 640x480 on my Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and it runs beautifully.

> Maybe you better check your facts before post an ignorant message.

Just curious, but what's your frame rate (TIMEREFRESH) at full
screen in the opening scene using 640x480?

->ALX<-

Prowler

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

>I run Quake at 640x480 on my Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and it runs beautifully.
>Maybe you better check your facts before post an ignorant message.

Total and complete BS......Fuchi is that you???????

Come on people, i own a Cyrix and I am VERY HAPPY with it, yea Its
slow in quake....deal with it, I paid under $200 for a chip thats as
fast as a Pentium 150 in almost everything...but NOT QUAKE....get over
it. I figure that by the time most games use the FPU the way quake
does (assuming that EVER happens) I can get a new chip anyway.

But saying that a Cyrix P150+ runs beautifully at 640x480 is a blatent
and outright LIE. Unless you think 7 FPS is good, then your just
braindamaged. At 320x200 its very nice at 360x240 its enjoyable, at
anything higher it starts to get noticable VERY CHOPPY.

Lets not take the GOOD POINTS of the Cyrix Chip and invalidate them by
trying to spread complete falshoods. As with EVERYTHING, Cyrix has
its good points and bad points, but if we start telling lies about
the Bad points....who will ever believe the good ones? not to mention
that some poor fool might beleive you and WASTE HIS MONEY.

Cyrix is GREAT FOR ALL THE GAMES IVE EVER PLAYED **EXCEPT QUAKE**, but
for quake, your stuck at low res for a good framerate...PERIOD!

--
Michael Baldi Though it take a thousand years
mba...@cyberspy.com we will be FREE! --G'Kar

***ERROR Reading Pop-Tart in Drive A: Delete Kids? [y/n]

Scott Canion

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

Marcus A. Spears wrote:
>
> Daniel Tracy wrote:
> > Sorry, but don't cloud your judgement of what 'beautifully' means by
> > being defensive. I have a 686-120+ w/ 32MB RAM, S3 video, top-notch
> > hardware (other than the 686 :( ). I get 20 fps at 320x200 VGA! 640x480?
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Not a chance! I don't want to have to pay for a Pentium
> > just for Quake (and maybe some ray-tracing), though, so I'll wait for the
> > Pentium Pro to come down in price.
>

> Did you know that the Pentium Pro is actually SLOWER than the Pentium for 16-bit
> applications (like most DOS games)? Just wanted to make sure you knew.

I don't agree with this statement. I base this on performance numbers from Winbench 96.

WinBench96's CPUMark16 CPUMark32

Gateway Pentium 200 340 340
IBM Pentium 166 316 316
Micron Millenia Pro200 368 561

As you can see, the Pentium Pro is faster, even running just 16-bit apps. But don't take my
word for it. There are benchmark Web Sites everywhere.

And as for your statement that most DOS games are 16-bit, I'm not sure I would agree with
that either. Any game that uses a DOS extender (Rational, Phar Lap, etc.) is more than likely
written as a 32-bit app, and should run even faster on a Pentium Pro.

> And how do you find out your frame rate in Quake? If it's in any of the README
> files, either I'm not looking closely enough or it isn't in there.

From the Quake console, type TIMEREFRESH.

WILLIAM C YU

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

Marcus A. Spears (msp...@boisdarc.etsu.edu) wrote:

: Did you know that the Pentium Pro is actually SLOWER than the Pentium

: for 16-bit applications (like most DOS games)? Just wanted to make
: sure you knew.

According to the benchmarks listed at WWW.CAM.ORG/~AGENA/QUAKE.HTML, the
Pentium Pro performs like a champ on Quake. It is listed at the top with
46 fps. Now, I will admit that it'll be hard to do a comparision until
someone posts his Pentium/200 scores since the fastest Pentium listed was
166.

: And how do you find out your frame rate in Quake? If it's in any of

: the README files, either I'm not looking closely enough or it isn't in
: there.

Hit the ~ key and type TIMEREFRESH. To rules of the benchmark is to start
a new game and maximize the screen before doing this. That way, everybody
is using the same reference point.

: FWIW: On my Pentium 133, with a Diamond Stealth Video 2001 {PCI, 2

: megs DRAM} card, it's fine in most modes up to 360x400 (or whatever).
: Above that, it's so slow it's : unplayable.

It may be just my card but I find the SVGA VESA modes are as fast as
their corresponding X-Modes. E.g., 640x480 was just as fast as 320x480.

Victor Healey

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

Want to hear a real bummer. IBM is the force behind the Cyrix chip as they
try to break Intel and recapture the PC computer market for themselves.

IBM is behind Merlin a new OS/2 OS. Merlin takes a BIG HIT (40%! ?)on a
Cyrix chip since Merlin includes VTD which requires a fast Intel FP to
work smoothly and at any speed at all!

The IBM hardware guys aren't talking to the software guys it would appear.

I believe a person who buys into the Cyrix dream is deluding themselves
and asking for a lot of pain in the longer run. But go ahead if you
insist. It is a free world. You can't say others didn't warn you.
--
Sysop 4-phun Info Server
Marietta GA USA

Email: 4-p...@ilinks.net

Kyle Klukas

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

M. Rogers wrote:

>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:58:31 -0700, Kyle Klukas
> <klu...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >Just so you know, most dos games made in the last three years (including
> >Doom and Quake) use 32 bit extenders and are 32 bit apps.
> >
> >Kyle
>

> Really? When did DOS become 32bit ?
> 32 Bit exenders AFAIK are a way of accessing the whole
> of the extended memory as one pool of memory -- i.e. a way around the
> 640k for base memory limit for DOS normally.
>
> * *
> Why can't women remember to leave the toilet seat up?
> * *

True, but the games that use dpmi memory are also written in 32 bit code
and only need 16 bit to make calls to drivers.

Kyle

Jeff McClain

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

James Jeffrey Benjamin wrote:
> For the math intensive calculations done in Quake, ID had to bring in the
> FPU to do them. Doing a 6x86 version or similar would require using the
> FPU less and the end result would probably be much like it is now. :-) Sorry.
> A 486/5x86 version? When Doom came out, the 486 was already obsolete. Now

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hello!!! what planet were you on when DOOM came out?????!!!! My 486 33Mhz
was brand new (there might have been a few initial DX2 then) but the 486
was certainly NOT obsolete then (nor, I believe, is it now!)

> you want a next generation game to run on a system 2 generations behind?
> Some how I don't see that happening. However, I can probably say the ID
> will streamline routines to make them as fast as possible. But to make it
> playable on a slow system is nota good idea. Besides, what's wrong with
> the version that's out now? A 486/100 with 16 megs ram at 320x200 can
> play it just fine. (you don't have enough ram? C'mon! 4 megs costs $26

^^^^^^^^^^^^
I thought that you said that the 486 was obsolete over 4 years ago!!????
Now quake runs just fine on them???

Say something intellegent...

Jeff

--
=========================================================
The views expressed herein are my own and do NOT reflect
the policy or views of Micron Technology.
Jeff McClain Product Engineer jmcc...@micron.com
voice (208) 368-5483
fax (208) 368-4495
=========================================================

Stephen Baldwin

unread,

Jul 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/10/96

to

"Stephen L. Hales" <hal...@goodnet.com> wrote:

>Craig Murch wrote:

>> Um, I think you'll find that this has been mentioned before. Many > times,
>> in fact. We all know that 486s/5x86s/6x86s all suck at Quake. I just

>> wish ID would do a 486/5x86/6x86 optimized version...
>>

>> Craig

>I run Quake at 640x480 on my Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and it runs beautifully.
>Maybe you better check your facts before post an ignorant message.

>Steve

I run Quake on a 200MHz Pentium Pro and get 60fps, Its cool

Steve

Dave Glue

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

On 9 Jul 1996 23:56:22 GMT, jam...@wam.umd.edu (James Jeffrey
Benjamin) wrote:

>playable on a slow system is nota good idea. Besides, what's wrong with
>the version that's out now? A 486/100 with 16 megs ram at 320x200 can
>play it just fine.

10fps is _not_ fine for an action game- and that is what your getting
in any sort of heated action, I don't care what your video card is.
Quake requires a Pentium, period- I'd say a P-100 minimum, even for
VGA.

Dave Glue

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:11:14 -0500, "Marcus A. Spears"
<msp...@boisdarc.etsu.edu> wrote:

>Daniel Tracy wrote:
>> Sorry, but don't cloud your judgement of what 'beautifully' means by
>> being defensive. I have a 686-120+ w/ 32MB RAM, S3 video, top-notch
>> hardware (other than the 686 :( ). I get 20 fps at 320x200 VGA! 640x480?
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Not a chance! I don't want to have to pay for a Pentium
>> just for Quake (and maybe some ray-tracing), though, so I'll wait for the
>> Pentium Pro to come down in price.
>

>Did you know that the Pentium Pro is actually SLOWER than the Pentium for 16-bit
>applications (like most DOS games)? Just wanted to make sure you knew.

Just want to make sure you have a clue as to what you're talking
about.

DOS games have been "mostly" 32-bit for years with the DOS4GW
extension. A Pentium Pro 200 is _the_ fastest machine for Quake, as
evidenced by the frame rate numbers on one of the Quake websites.

Ron Hanson

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

Scott Canion <sca...@bangate.compaq.com> wrote:

>> Did you know that the Pentium Pro is actually SLOWER than the Pentium for 16-bit
>> applications (like most DOS games)? Just wanted to make sure you knew.

>I don't agree with this statement. I base this on performance numbers from Winbench 96.

> WinBench96's CPUMark16 CPUMark32

>Gateway Pentium 200 340 340
>IBM Pentium 166 316 316
>Micron Millenia Pro200 368 561

>As you can see, the Pentium Pro is faster, even running just 16-bit apps. But don't take my
>word for it. There are benchmark Web Sites everywhere.

>And as for your statement that most DOS games are 16-bit, I'm not sure I would agree with
>that either. Any game that uses a DOS extender (Rational, Phar Lap, etc.) is more than likely
>written as a 32-bit app, and should run even faster on a Pentium Pro.

Where did you get the numbers for the pentium 200??
CPUMark 16 CPUMark32
My quantex 166 scores 335 341
at 200mhz it scores 371 372

If anything this show the pro is equal at 16-bit performance. How
could this be though. Even intel says the pro is worse at 16bit. Is
the benchmark flawed??

Ron

James Wall

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

On Tue, 09 Jul 1996 16:11:18 -0700, Daniel Tracy <se...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>> Hmm ... how much RAM do you have, and what graphics card? I played a
>> 3 machine Quake DM last weekend, all machines had 16MB RAM and S3
>> graphics cards ... my P90 absolutely slaughtered the 5x86 133 and 6x86
>> P120+ I played against for rendering speed. Easily 10fps faster in
>> 320x200/240.

> Sorry, but don't cloud your judgement of what 'beautifully' means by
>being defensive.

I'm not being defensive. I think the 6x86 is a great chip for the
price Cyrix ask for it. I should add that the P120+ killed my P90 in
Descent2, Flight Unlimited [strange .. I thought this really banged
the FPU before], and a whole heap of other games.

>I have a 686-120+ w/ 32MB RAM, S3 video, top-notch
>hardware (other than the 686 :( ). I get 20 fps at 320x200 VGA! 640x480?
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Not a chance!

Yeah, ditto. The guy who owns the 5x86 133 said that he thought Quake
struggled in VGA on anything but a P5-133 ... I guess it's all down to
your personal framerate tollerance. I

>I don't want to have to pay for a Pentium
>just for Quake (and maybe some ray-tracing), though, so I'll wait for the
>Pentium Pro to come down in price.

I wouldn't dump the 6x86 just for Quake either.

M. Rogers

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:03:44 GMT, Scott Canion
<sca...@bangate.compaq.com> wrote:

>And as for your statement that most DOS games are 16-bit, I'm not sure I would agree with
>that either. Any game that uses a DOS extender (Rational, Phar Lap, etc.) is more than likely
>written as a 32-bit app, and should run even faster on a Pentium Pro.

I thought a DOS extender just gave you 32 bit access to the memory as
a large pool. DOS is still 16 bit.

M. Rogers

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:58:31 -0700, Kyle Klukas
<klu...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>
>Just so you know, most dos games made in the last three years (including
>Doom and Quake) use 32 bit extenders and are 32 bit apps.
>
>Kyle

Really? When did DOS become 32bit ?
32 Bit exenders AFAIK are a way of accessing the whole
of the extended memory as one pool of memory -- i.e. a way around the
640k for base memory limit for DOS normally.

* *

Beowulf

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

HEY, I HAVE A P100 WHICH RUNS QUAKE FINE, BUT I WAS THINKING ABOUT GETTING A
133MHZ P166+. WHAT'S THIS ABOUT THE 686 BEING NO GOOD?

TC

In article <31e3b156...@news.hunterlink.net.au>, alp...@hunterlink.net.au
says...

M.B.

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:11:14 -0500, "Marcus A. Spears"
<msp...@boisdarc.etsu.edu> wrote:

>Daniel Tracy wrote:
>> Sorry, but don't cloud your judgement of what 'beautifully' means by

>> being defensive. I have a 686-120+ w/ 32MB RAM, S3 video, top-notch

>> hardware (other than the 686 :( ). I get 20 fps at 320x200 VGA! 640x480?

>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Not a chance! I don't want to have to pay for a Pentium

>> just for Quake (and maybe some ray-tracing), though, so I'll wait for the
>> Pentium Pro to come down in price.
>

>Did you know that the Pentium Pro is actually SLOWER than the Pentium for 16-bit
>applications (like most DOS games)? Just wanted to make sure you knew.
>

>And how do you find out your frame rate in Quake? If it's in any of the README
>files, either I'm not looking closely enough or it isn't in there.
>

>FWIW: On my Pentium 133, with a Diamond Stealth Video 2001 {PCI, 2 megs DRAM} card,
>it's fine in most modes up to 360x400 (or whatever). Above that, it's so slow it's
>unplayable.

The PRO is slower on 16 bit apps than the P5? Yes the PRO is
only slower on 16 bit apps when compared to running 32 bit apps on the
same processor, but the new intel P5-200 just came out and is only
slightly better in CPU16 results than the PRO but still not near the
CPU32 mark of the pro. Heres some examples from computer mags
benchmarks:
PRO- Micron P6-200 CPU16 = 358 CPU32= 530

P5-Micron P5-166 CPU16 = 310 CPU32= 306
P5-DELL P5-166 CPU16= 322 CPU32= 330

P5-DELL P5-200 CPU16= 378 CPU32= 374
P5-Micron P5-200 CPU16= 372 CPU32= 376
CYRIX SYS performance C166+ CPU16= 313 CPU32= 322

As you can see the 16 bit apps on a P5 are a little faster but not by
that much, and when compared in 32 bit apps (which seem to be kicking
16 bit out the door) its no question the PRO is the way to go.

tms...@flinthills.com

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

cri...@inside.pp.sci.fi (Antti Jaatinen) wrote:

>ie. use integer math instead of floating point calculations (math
>processor intensive). Yes, Cyrix 166's FPU works at about P90's
>speed.

True, especially so on a Triton MB. However, on Apollo MB's, where
you can get Linear bursting, the processor really hits it's stride,
and although the FPU doesn't catch the Pentium of same speed, it
closes the disparity, and the CPU seems to gain a lot more ground :)
The CPU with a newer chipset to back it is all it takes.

Chris.

Dave Glue

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 01:21:16 GMT, ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk (M. Rogers)
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:03:44 GMT, Scott Canion
><sca...@bangate.compaq.com> wrote:
>
>>And as for your statement that most DOS games are 16-bit, I'm not sure I would agree with
>>that either. Any game that uses a DOS extender (Rational, Phar Lap, etc.) is more than likely
>>written as a 32-bit app, and should run even faster on a Pentium Pro.
>
>I thought a DOS extender just gave you 32 bit access to the memory as
>a large pool. DOS is still 16 bit.

And what is DOS? A file system. It doesn't handle graphics, user
input, sound, etc. So when your game is loading, it's accessing it
via 16-bit DOS. When you're actually _playing_ it, it's in 32-bit
mode.

The Lord Leto II

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

In article <31E2EF...@alcatel.es> Maciej Wichrowski <mac...@alcatel.es> writes:
>Message for those of you who mention Quake!
>
>Alex Celic wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't Quake use FPU? I think it is so... that's the reson why your
>> Cyrix plays it slower than Intel - Cyrix's FPU is inferrior to the
>> Intel's
>
>now quake use some 32bit single floating point variables but final will
>not: as people said [everything]"in later version will be replaced by
>some fixed point number, as is typical in DOS games (because the floating
>point unit of Intels just amazingly sucks)" (qspec31_3.html)

You're kidding, right? Intel FPU amazingly sucks. Yeah. The only
thing it sucks is our breath away, crack-addict.

>And guess which processor will be better: Cyrix for $250 or Intel for
>$500? (6x86 133 p166+, 166 respectively).

The intel one.

> Maciej
>
>Maciej Wichrowski < mac...@alcatel.es > Information Systems Department
>Alcatel Polska
>POLAND, Warszawa, Marsa 56, tel(48 22) 15 49 85, ext. 149, 197

Heh.

************ The Lord Leto II God Emperor of Arrakis *************
* The crowd roars * It's deep and so unhealthy * The rest you know *
* I'll feel the hands that felt me * Cold hands * Your hands *
* Cover my mouth * While I'm staring into bright lights * APPLAUSE *
* APPLAUSE * APPLAUSE * APPLAUSE * -- Faith No More, "Malpractice" *

Mark DeLuca

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

$200.00? Down around $65.00

Ronald Van Iwaarden

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

In article <MPLANET.31e46a...@ilinks.net>,

4-p...@ilinks.net (Victor Healey) wrote:
>Want to hear a real bummer. IBM is the force behind the Cyrix chip as they
>try to break Intel and recapture the PC computer market for themselves.
>
>IBM is behind Merlin a new OS/2 OS. Merlin takes a BIG HIT (40%! ?)on a
>Cyrix chip since Merlin includes VTD which requires a fast Intel FP to
>work smoothly and at any speed at all!

WHere do your figures (40%) come from?

>The IBM hardware guys aren't talking to the software guys it would appear.

I believe that they are not supposed to. They are separate companies within
the company and each has to try to make a profit, regardless of how it
affects other portions.

>I believe a person who buys into the Cyrix dream is deluding themselves
>and asking for a lot of pain in the longer run. But go ahead if you
>insist. It is a free world. You can't say others didn't warn you.

Again, people simply need to look at what they do most of the time and then
use that to reason what would be good for them.

For myself, I am going to be upgrading in early August and am planning on
going with the 6x86 p150+. I am a mathematician that does some heavy duty
computational mathematics and I sometimes run small problems on my PC
(presently a 486/66) and run the big problems on a Sparc ULTRA. 90-95% of
the time, I am writing code, compiling, reading news, web-surfing, playing
non-FPU intensive games,... The other 5-10% of the time, I am running my
programs (small problems sometimes takes hours/days on my 486/66) and/or
playing a few seconds of Quake (4fps just doesn't cut it).

For me, a p150+ is perfect since it is cheaper than a pentium 120 and, for
most of my tasks, it is about 30-40% faster than the pentium 120. This
means it will save 30-40% of my wait time on compilations, and other CPU
intensive but not FPU intensive programs. WHen I run Quake or my programs,
it will "cost" me 30-40% of my time (not really in Quake, 360x480 would be
great for me) but I usually run those in the background anyway.

Just my opinions...

--Ron
o Ronald Van Iwaarden | Work to live;
/\ Hope College | Live to bike;
_`\ `_<=== Holland MI 49423 | Bike to work!
__(_)/_(_)___.-._ voice : (616)355-7120 | http://www.cs.hope.edu/~rvaniwaa/

Tim D. Strong

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

The Lord Leto II wrote:

> You're kidding, right? Intel FPU amazingly sucks. Yeah. The only
> thing it sucks is our breath away, crack-addict.

Actually the FP performance on Intel parts is fairly poor. Among other
things the stack architecture used in them is a real hinderance.
Unfortunately for Cyrix theirs sucks even more. But as far as X86 code
goes its the best thing you've got going.

Jason Dean Malone

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

Lets get more specific. From my experience,
a P-120 with a good motherboard (like Tyan, ASUS,etc.)
decent video,and PB cache is the minimum required for a
"livable" framerate i.e. 25fps.

Jeff R. Baker

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

> Quake requires a Pentium, period- I'd say a P-100 minimum, even for
> VGA.

As is the case in almost all of these my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad
chip/OS wars there can be no winner. The "winner" is determined on an
individual basis by what the chip/OS will be used for. The Cyrix is a
great chip for someone who doesn't rely heavily on the FPU and is
looking for a cost-effective alternative. The Pentium is a great chip
for someone who relies heavily on the FPU and bought alot of Netscape
stock the first day it came out (read: can afford it). There seems to
be little point in continuing the argument.

Now discussing which chip is more suitable for a specific task is
another story. If you are a graphics professional who spends a lot of
time raytracing, you would be an idiot to buy a Cyrix. If you don't use
any applications that access the FPU, you're throwing away money buying
an Intel.

This, of course, leads us back to Quake. Pentium chips run Quake much
faster. Period. If playing quake in high-res is important enough for
you to pay the premium, you have chosen the chip that's best suited to
your needs. However, I can't resist pointing out three words to those
people who apparently bought/upgraded their multi-thousand dollar
computer systems just to play Quake: Playstation, Saturn, U64. You've
waited years for Quake, why not wait a couple more months for the
cartridge versions to come out?

Finally, I can't believe no one has quoted the line from the quake
readme that says something to the effect of, "This release of Quake is
**heavily biased** towards pentium systems. The final release will also
be optimized for the 486." I know the 6x86 isn't a 486, and I know
Quake will still use the FPU extensively, but I can't believe that these
optimizations won't help the Cyrix chips as well. Maybe Id will even
take the Cyrix chip into consideration when they further optimize.

Daron Myrick

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

|>Did you know that the Pentium Pro is actually SLOWER than the Pentium for
|> 16-bit applications (like most DOS games)?

You are right and wrong.
PPro does run 16 bit apps slower.
On the other hand, most DOS games/apps made in the last couple of years are
true 32bit apps/games, which only do 16/8 bits when making BIOS calls for Disk
access and the like.
Win95 starts out in DOS and completely unhooks it, just like Novell Netware
does, which means that DOS and all it's compatibility are not only unhooked,
but completely whiped out and revectored.

John Howland

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to Jeff R. Baker

Very well put! Covers everything!

Syed Zakir Ali

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

In <4s0f2g$8...@news.interlog.com> dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue)
writes:
>
>On Tue, 09 Jul 1996 22:25:17 -0700, "Stephen L. Hales"

><hal...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Craig Murch wrote:
>>
>>> Um, I think you'll find that this has been mentioned before. Many >
times,
>>> in fact. We all know that 486s/5x86s/6x86s all suck at Quake. I
just
>>> wish ID would do a 486/5x86/6x86 optimized version...
>>>
>>> Craig
>>
>>I run Quake at 640x480 on my Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and it runs
beautifully.
>>Maybe you better check your facts before post an ignorant message.
>

>Maybe you better define "beautifully" for us. The _facts_ show that
>the Cyrix runs Quake at about half the frame rate of equivalent
>Pentiums. Get a clue.
>
Who gives a shit about Quake anyway?! OH GASP! Quake wont run on my
6x86 p150+ in 640x480 and yes i did start the QUAKE KICK DUKE NUKEMS
@SS thread but i am wiser now. Why are all of you debating about how
Quake runs on a Cyrix p150+ cause quake sucks and ID did a job that was
worth about as much as a piece of someone's shit.

Syed Zakir Ali

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

In <31E3FD...@students.uiuc.edu> Kyle Klukas
<klu...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
>Marcus A. Spears wrote:
>
>snip

I would expect the 6x86-P166+ may be on par with a P5-120 when it comes
to floating point. It certainly isn't in a slow as a 486DX or anything
like that.

I think you could make a "rule of thumb" saying that the Cyrix 6x86 is 2
steps up the Pentium ladder on integer performance (i.e. 150MHz
performance at 120MHz), and a step or two down on floating performance.
Still, nothing to sneeze at. I mean, for the price/performance ratio, I
think 30% slower floating point is fine - I spent 1/2 what I would on a
P5-150, and at least I have floating point that to me appears to be at
least Pentium-class floating point.

--
/---------------------------------------\
| Jim Morris | jfmo...@ix.netcom.com |
\---------------------------------------/

Greg Morrison

unread,

Jul 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/11/96

to

The Lord Leto II wrote:
>

> In article <31E2EF...@alcatel.es> Maciej Wichrowski <mac...@alcatel.es> writes:
> >Message for those of you who mention Quake!
> >
> >Alex Celic wrote:

> >now quake use some 32bit single floating point variables but final will
> >not: as people said [everything]"in later version will be replaced by
> >some fixed point number, as is typical in DOS games (because the floating
> >point unit of Intels just amazingly sucks)" (qspec31_3.html)
>

> You're kidding, right? Intel FPU amazingly sucks. Yeah. The only
> thing it sucks is our breath away, crack-addict.
>

> > Maciej
> >

"Stephen L. Hales" <hal...@goodnet.com> wrote:

>Craig Murch wrote:

>I run Quake at 640x480 on my Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and it runs beautifully.
>Maybe you better check your facts before post an ignorant message.

Well how much is Timerefresh at the beginning of the game, video mode 0?
Saying 'it runs beautifully' isn't enough..

>Steve

-- Flux

tms...@flinthills.com

unread,

Jul 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/12/96

to

fel...@sprynet.com (Dalias) wrote:

>Dennis Roark wrote:

>>cyrix will look bad in your benchmarks. How about using Wintune 95 or
>>some other benchmark that tests more than the the FPU! You have

>I hope you know the fpu is what matters most in Quake, except maybe the
>processor speed. For running Quake, Cyrix 5x86 = 486.

The Cyrix 5x86 IS a 486 type chip, it goes in a 486 motherboard; it's
closer the the Pentium overdrive (which I think all will admit is a
BIG loser in the bang for the buck)

The Cyrix 5x86 is NOT the Cyrix 6x86. Just make sure you are
comparing apples to apples.

However, a few friends with Cyrix 5x86/120's have fair performance.
Better then other's performance on a P66. :)

Chris.

Jonathan Hoof

unread,

Jul 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/12/96

to

Yeah, that's it, compromise on speed for everything else to get optimal
speed for Quake. Who cares about other games/apps, and future games. Of
course, if you buy PPro, you get the best of both worlds. Only cost ya
another $1000 or more!

-Jonathan Hoof
ho...@agora.rdrop.com

M. Rogers (ma...@markbz.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 8 Jul 1996 13:28:21 GMT, pli...@uni-muenster.de (Patrick Libuda)
: wrote:

: >
: >When you want game you can (maybe even should) buy cyrix. The only
: >advantyge of the pentium is the floating point unit which, as you say,
: >is a lot faster. BUT if you only play under DOS you might never need
: >your floating point thing.
: >
: >exeptions: Falcon 3.0x, Ef2000 and a few more.

: Er.. like Quake.

: Why can't women remember to leave the toilet seat up?

Jason Chen

unread,

Jul 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/12/96

to

In article <4s47rb$6...@juliana.sprynet.com>,

Dalias <71614...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Dennis Roark wrote:
>
>>cyrix will look bad in your benchmarks. How about using Wintune 95 or
>>some other benchmark that tests more than the the FPU!

Given what we know about Cyrix FPU, the Whetstone performance is not a
surprise. What is surprising is the Dhrystone performance. The Cyrix P150+ is
even slower than a Gateway 133XL. Any clue?
Gateway2000 Cyrix
p5-133XL 6X86 P150

Dhrystone 237 MIPS 221 MIPS
Whetstone 64 MFLOPS 48 MFLOPS
Video speed 11 MP/s 12 MP/s
C:\ Cached speed 21 MB/s 24 MB/s
C:\ Uncached speed 3 MB/s 2.5 MB/s
Installed RAM 32 MB 16 MB
RAM Read avg 232 MB/s 210 MB/s
RAM Write avg 83 MB/s 142 MB/s
RAM Copy avg 57 MB/s 62 MB/s

Michael Ng Chee Ming

unread,

Jul 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/12/96

to

mba...@cyberspy.com (Prowler) wrote:

>>I run Quake at 640x480 on my Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and it runs beautifully.
>>Maybe you better check your facts before post an ignorant message.

>Total and complete BS......Fuchi is that you???????
Don't post this any more!
>Come on people, i own a Cyrix and I am VERY HAPPY with it, yea Its
>slow in quake....deal with it, I paid under $200 for a chip thats as
>fast as a Pentium 150 in almost everything...but NOT QUAKE....get over
>it. I figure that by the time most games use the FPU the way quake
>does (assuming that EVER happens) I can get a new chip anyway.
I play Quake in 640x480 very smooth too!! I use MGA VGA card.

>But saying that a Cyrix P150+ runs beautifully at 640x480 is a blatent
>and outright LIE. Unless you think 7 FPS is good, then your just
>braindamaged. At 320x200 its very nice at 360x240 its enjoyable, at
>anything higher it starts to get noticable VERY CHOPPY.
7 FPS? I got at least 25 FPS!

>Lets not take the GOOD POINTS of the Cyrix Chip and invalidate them by
>trying to spread complete falshoods. As with EVERYTHING, Cyrix has
>its good points and bad points, but if we start telling lies about
>the Bad points....who will ever believe the good ones? not to mention
>that some poor fool might beleive you and WASTE HIS MONEY.

>Cyrix is GREAT FOR ALL THE GAMES IVE EVER PLAYED **EXCEPT QUAKE**, but
>for quake, your stuck at low res for a good framerate...PERIOD!
I thing Cyrix is strong enough to play all games....& at least you
must have a good VGA card like ATI & DIAMOND.

>--
>Michael Baldi Though it take a thousand years
>mba...@cyberspy.com we will be FREE! --G'Kar

>***ERROR Reading Pop-Tart in Drive A: Delete Kids? [y/n]

Paul Hsu

unread,

Jul 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/12/96

to

> If there's not Cyrix and AMD, P166 will still be selling at 700 and after
> you bought that P166 at $700 for six months, intel will discontinue it and
> sell you the PPRO at $1,000 and after you bought the PPRO at 1000 for three
> months, intel will discontinue the PPRO and sell you the P7 or PPPRO at
> $2,000 and the story goes on and on and on. History is the proof of it?
> I'm neither pro-Cyrix, nor pro-AMD but pro-Choice.
>
> Magic

Hell no, you know anything about marketing?? If the prices are gonna
stay that high who's gonna buy them?? You can say that as software
becomes more demanding, you need to get the more expensive machine...
right, who's gonna buy the software unless they can afford to get the
machine? I am not gonna run windows 95 or nt unless I can get more than
a 386. besides, then all the software developers will only write what
users computers can handle, otherwise they're out of business.
What history are you talking about?? Look at the mac, they don't have
mac competition, true they have pc competition, but they kept prices
slightly high, now they're killing themselves.

Jeff R. Baker

unread,

Jul 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/12/96

to

> Well how much is Timerefresh at the beginning of the game, video mode 0?
> Saying 'it runs beautifully' isn't enough..

Remember to maximize the screen, or your results will seem much better
than they actually are.

Majin

unread,

Jul 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/12/96

to

mik...@chevalier.net (Michael Ng Chee Ming) wrote:

>mba...@cyberspy.com (Prowler) wrote:
>
>>>I run Quake at 640x480 on my Cyrix 6x86 P150+ and it runs beautifully.
>>>Maybe you better check your facts before post an ignorant message.
>
>>Total and complete BS......Fuchi is that you???????
>Don't post this any more!
>>Come on people, i own a Cyrix and I am VERY HAPPY with it, yea Its
>>slow in quake....deal with it, I paid under $200 for a chip thats as
>>fast as a Pentium 150 in almost everything...but NOT QUAKE....get over
>>it. I figure that by the time most games use the FPU the way quake
>>does (assuming that EVER happens) I can get a new chip anyway.
>I play Quake in 640x480 very smooth too!! I use MGA VGA card.
>
>>But saying that a Cyrix P150+ runs beautifully at 640x480 is a blatent
>>and outright LIE. Unless you think 7 FPS is good, then your just
>>braindamaged. At 320x200 its very nice at 360x240 its enjoyable, at
>>anything higher it starts to get noticable VERY CHOPPY.
>7 FPS? I got at least 25 FPS!

unread,

Jul 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/12/96

to

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996 tms...@flinthills.com wrote:

> fel...@sprynet.com (Dalias) wrote:
>
> >Dennis Roark wrote:
>
> >>cyrix will look bad in your benchmarks. How about using Wintune 95 or

> >>some other benchmark that tests more than the the FPU! You have
>
> >I hope you know the fpu is what matters most in Quake, except maybe the
> >processor speed. For running Quake, Cyrix 5x86 = 486.
>
> The Cyrix 5x86 IS a 486 type chip, it goes in a 486 motherboard; it's
> closer the the Pentium overdrive (which I think all will admit is a
> BIG loser in the bang for the buck)
>
> The Cyrix 5x86 is NOT the Cyrix 6x86. Just make sure you are
> comparing apples to apples.
>
> However, a few friends with Cyrix 5x86/120's have fair performance.
> Better then other's performance on a P66. :)
>
> Chris.
>
>
>

This is true, the fpu on the cyrix 5x86 is the same as on a 6x86 and is in
a different league than 486 chips. A 486's fpu is not capable of running
in parallel with its integer unit. With a l1 cache bandwidth >250MB/s and
a decent fpu (for a $65 chip) the chip's performance is closer to a slower
pentium than a fast 486.

-- Will

Peter Rohman

unread,

Jul 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/12/96

to

Francesco (Spelling?) that started this line designed a test which was
intended to skew the benchmark tests. One wonders what he will say when
Cyrix repeats themselves and produces the best FPUs. Will FPU math no
longer be important.
It is a fact that the 6X86 runns Windows 95 faster than any other IBM PC
compatable chip. This observer thinks that fools will always find a way
to prove themselves to be follish.
--
If 50 million people say a foolish thing,
it is still a foolish thing.

Anatole France

Jeff McClain

unread,

Jul 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/12/96

to Beowulf

Beowulf wrote:
>
> HEY, I HAVE A P100 WHICH RUNS QUAKE FINE, BUT I WAS THINKING ABOUT GETTING A
> 133MHZ P166+. WHAT'S THIS ABOUT THE 686 BEING NO GOOD?

From what I have read, everywhere, if you wanna play quake (at least right now)
the Cyrix 686 sucks wind (it posts scores on the quake timerefresh VERY close to
a P-90 to P-100 with similar components). I know that I am always harping for
specs and numbers but I think that general speculation is ok to summarize what
entire threads have been saying...just don't try and oppose the general feeling
and data without data of your own or by saying "I think it runs fast...blah..blah".

there is a home page out there somewhere that has all the numbers that you need to
back up what I just said, but I forget what the URL is right now. A quick search
should pop it up. It is a quake benchmark page.

Jeff

P.S. And NO!! I am not a WIntel lover. I am also planning on trying to get a P-150+
and oc it to 133MHz from Cyrix as I don't play Quake and most of the rest of the
benchmarks that I have seen post a crude equivalence of the 133MHz P-166+ running
at or near the Intel P-166 for approximately 1/2 the money...

--
=========================================================
The views expressed herein are my own and do NOT reflect
the policy or views of Micron Technology.
Jeff McClain Product Engineer jmcc...@micron.com
voice (208) 368-5483
fax (208) 368-4495
=========================================================

Jeff McClain

unread,

Jul 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/12/96

to

Dave Glue wrote:
>
> On 9 Jul 1996 23:56:22 GMT, jam...@wam.umd.edu (James Jeffrey

> Benjamin) wrote:
>
> >playable on a slow system is nota good idea. Besides, what's wrong with
> >the version that's out now? A 486/100 with 16 megs ram at 320x200 can
> >play it just fine.
>

> 10fps is _not_ fine for an action game- and that is what your getting
> in any sort of heated action, I don't care what your video card is.
> Quake requires a Pentium, period- I'd say a P-100 minimum, even for
> VGA.

You are completely 100% correct, Dave. The P-100 is the VERY minimum
that you should be able to play quake in. I have one and have seen quake
on several other platforms and I must say that I am unimpressed with even
my P-100 on anything other than 300x200 (which sucks!). There may have been
one other mode in the VESA 2.0 (over mode 10) that was not too bad, but
the rest were just strictly "check out how cool this looks in 1024x768" trys
since you could NEVER play there...I seem to remember thinking the same thing
when I tried to play descent in 640x480...Looked nice, but you were DEAD if
you tried to play against others in that mode...Guess I'll try out one of the
Cyrix 686's 120Mhz P150+ (oc'ed to 133MHz) seems the best bang for the buck
right now...(I know...it sucks for quake, but I play MWII and Descent2)...

Jeff

bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au

unread,

Jul 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/13/96

to

Maciej Wichrowski <mac...@alcatel.es> writes:

>Hmmmm, my 486DX4/100oc120 with 20 MB of RAM makes 4fps at 320x200 at the
>beginning scene of Quake.

Then your 486DX4/100 is badly set up. My 486-100 from AMD (slower than
Intel, due to less cache and slower hardware multiply) does 6.7fps,
consistently. And it is running Quake in a window und linux/X, so that
shouldn't really speed things up, either. Not to mention that it has
rather little memory for running all that stuff at the same time (16M only).

Bernie
--
==============================================================================
Still thinking the Scots should have gone through to the quarterfinals.....