Intel VS. Cyrix
Ed Wensell III aka THE StormRaiser
In article <01bb8335$cc406c20$4204b8cd@maktos>, "Matt McDevitt" <mak...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Wondering whether to get an Intel Pentium or a Cyrix for your 486?
>
>1) Cyrix processors outperform Pentiums at the same clock rate.
>
>2) My friend the tech tried to install Windows 95 and said "the Cyrix is
>NOT 100% Intel-compatible" after he could not install it....(he's a real
>good tech by the way)
>
>3) The Cyrix isn't that much cheaper than Pentium, for example a Pentium
>133 can
>be had for about $270....as low as $256 at pricewatch.com. That's BEFORE
>the MASSIVE PRICE CUT scheduled for August....which will be much deeper
>than expected, because there won't be a November price cut...they are doing
>both of them at
>once!
>
>4) I think Cyrix is working on MMX as well...but to be safe I'd go with
>Intel's MMX. It has won the hearts and minds of developers and OEMs
>(Original Equipment Manufacturers) alike. You're eventually going to want
>MMX for the high performance it offers multimedia and games especially!
>(Quake MMX, just think of the possibilities)
>
>Heard something different? I take constructive criticism if it's true ;)
>My e-mail box is open if you are willing to use it!
>
>Matt McDevitt
>mak...@ix.netcom.com
That's nice, but *.binaries.* groups don't care...
Matt McDevitt
Apollo 69!
He's not to good of a tech I assume. I'm using a Cyrix 586 120 in a 486 PCI
MB with Win95 on one of my systems and everything works great.
Matt McDevitt <mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bb8335$cc406c20$4204b8cd@maktos>...
> 2) My friend the tech tried to install Windows 95 and said "the Cyrix is
> NOT 100% Intel-compatible" after he could not install it....(he's a real
> good tech by the way)
Take into consideration the speed performance of a Cyrix over an Intel (at
same clock speeds). Then take into considerations the price of the
motherboard. Add them up and you'll get a substantial savings.
YO...@bigass.com
On 6 Aug 1996 01:23:10 GMT, "Matt McDevitt" <mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Wondering whether to get an Intel Pentium or a Cyrix for your 486?
>
>1) Cyrix processors outperform Pentiums at the same clock rate.
>
>2) My friend the tech tried to install Windows 95 and said "the Cyrix is
>NOT 100% Intel-compatible" after he could not install it....(he's a real
>good tech by the way)
>
>3) The Cyrix isn't that much cheaper than Pentium, for example a Pentium
>133 can
>be had for about $270....as low as $256 at pricewatch.com. That's BEFORE
>the MASSIVE PRICE CUT scheduled for August....which will be much deeper
>than expected, because there won't be a November price cut...they are doing
>both of them at
>once!
>
>4) I think Cyrix is working on MMX as well...but to be safe I'd go with
>Intel's MMX. It has won the hearts and minds of developers and OEMs
>(Original Equipment Manufacturers) alike. You're eventually going to want
>MMX for the high performance it offers multimedia and games especially!
>(Quake MMX, just think of the possibilities)
>
>Heard something different? I take constructive criticism if it's true ;)
>My e-mail box is open if you are willing to use it!
>
>Matt McDevitt
>mak...@ix.netcom.com
WHERE YOU YOU BORNE IN A BARN? YUK YUK
DANO
"Matt McDevitt" <mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Matt McDevitt
>mak...@ix.netcom.com
Well, well, another debate is a happening!
First, the Cyrix 6x86 may be fast at the same clock rate as a Pentium,
however, throw Auto-Cad at each chip and watch the Pentium pull away.
For average users, this chip is just fine, and I've seen it run apps
as well as numerous games without a hitch.
The Cyrix doesn't offer that much difference in price, and
motherboards hold relatively the same price. I wouldn't expect too
huge of a price cut in August, but it should be good enough to make
most people stay Pentium.
Incompatible??? I've installed 95 on 2 6x86 systems without one single
problem. Go figure.....
I'm not bashing the Cyrix chip. I think it's about time Intel received
some serious competition. I'm hoping for a successful AMD roll out
too. These two clone makers won't take the market away from Intel, but
its nice to see prices drop sooner than later. I think all can agree
with me on that point!!!
DANO
MARY JAMES
Matt McDevitt says:
EWIAT>>4) I think Cyrix is working on MMX as well...but to be safe I'd go with
EWIAT>>Intel's MMX. It has won the hearts and minds of developers and OEMs
EWIAT>>(Original Equipment Manufacturers) alike. You're eventually going to wa
EWIAT>>MMX for the high performance it offers multimedia and games especially!
EWIAT>>(Quake MMX, just think of the possibilities)
EWIAT>>
EWIAT>>Heard something different? I take constructive criticism if it's true ;
EWIAT>>My e-mail box is open if you are willing to use it!
EWIAT>>
EWIAT>>Matt McDevitt
EWIAT>>mak...@ix.netcom.com
EWIAT>That's nice, but *.binaries.* groups don't care...
The pcadventure games group doesn't care much either....
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş * High in a window box were some Forget-Me-Nots *
KillRaven
In article <01bb839c$0a4a5100$06f467ce@kurtz>, apo...@infinet.com says...
>
>He's not to good of a tech I assume. I'm using a Cyrix 586 120 in a 486 PCI
>MB with Win95 on one of my systems and everything works great.
>
>Matt McDevitt <mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><01bb8335$cc406c20$4204b8cd@maktos>...
>> NOT 100% Intel-compatible" after he could not install it....(he's a real
>> good tech by the way)
>
>same clock speeds). Then take into considerations the price of the
>motherboard. Add them up and you'll get a substantial savings.
This has really nothing to do with emulators....
I can make it have something to do with emulators tho :)
I have a Cyrix 686 150 and a different machine (like anybody cares blah
blah)that is a P120. The 686 150 runs PasoFami SNES emulator and Virtual
Gameboy for 95 as well as all the other emulators great..Actually quite a bit
faster than the P120. But if you want to get into floating point calcs I dont
know..the Pentium is supposed to be faster. Anybody know (or care for that
matter) if any of the emulators to floating point calculations?
Hey, dont flame me.Im tired of spammers in this group..thought I would tie this
one in.
KillRaven
jbag...@fit.edu
Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
Ricardo Rodríguez
You know what. You are full of shit. The Cyrix 6x86 CPU's are the best
thing next to pentium pros. There cheaper and faster. So if you're
dumb enough to not buy one instead of the Intel Pentium. You're dumb as
fuck! You're motherboard probobly doesn't support it and thats why you
can talk domn about them. Dumbshit. If you take two computers of
identical hardware and replace one of the processesors with a cyrix 6x86
. It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
one now. I have a pentium one hundred now but as sone as I get the
money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
before you speak, you dumbshit.
Ed Wensell III aka THE StormRaiser
TSIA
You do of course realize there are groups specifically set up to discuss
processors, right?
Robert K. Johnson
Go look again. The Cyrix chip has an abacus for a
math co processor...
It IS FASTER than the equivalent Intel chip until the application
needs a GOOD MATH COPROCESSOR then it falls REAL short of being a
PENTIUM RIP OFF. You should really look at sombody elses ads
besides Cyrix... Like Maybe the review in PC MAGAZINE. That review
BURNED THE Cyrix... Go buy the Cyrix you deserve it. If the only
research you can do is read the manufacturers propaganda than you
truly need to buy that hockey puck.
GOOD LUCK IN THE CONTEST...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
/notes from a one legged duck/ ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FAR OUT MAN
Ricardo Rodríguez wrote:
>
> jbag...@fit.edu wrote:
> >
> > Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
>
> You know what. You are full of shit. The Cyrix 6x86 CPU's are the best
> thing next to pentium pros. There cheaper and faster. So if you're
> dumb enough to not buy one instead of the Intel Pentium. You're dumb as
> fuck! You're motherboard probobly doesn't support it and thats why you
> can talk domn about them. Dumbshit. If you take two computers of
> identical hardware and replace one of the processesors with a cyrix 6x86
> . It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
> one now. I have a pentium one hundred now but as sone as I get the
> money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
> before you speak, you dumbshit.
Pentium Pros are made for servers they are slowers in some instances than
the P5 chip. your comparing apples and oranges. The pc world sucks
because everything is optimized for complex instruction set (cisc) while
reduced instruction set(risc) could speed up everything... Silicon
Graphics run Risc and look how fast they are. Risc rocks it just came out
later than cisc and they kept with the crappy chip architecture we're all
used to.
Jason Malone
6x86 "cheaper and faster than Pentiumpro"??
BWAHAHAHAH. idiot.
Howard A. Gyton
In article <320D6D...@earthlink.net>, Ricardo
<rica...@earthlink.net> writes
> If you take two computers of
>identical hardware and replace one of the processesors with a cyrix 6x86
>. It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
>one now. I have a pentium one hundred now
And why don't you have a Cyrix anymore? You, me and everyone else in the
world now knows that the Cyrix FPU is significantly slower than the
Intel one and what does Quake use a lot of? You guessed it, floating
point maths so the natural upshot of this is Quake runs slower on the
Cyrix. I know, I have a Cyrix P166+ and plays about as fast as a Pentium
100/120.
--
Howard A. Gyton
KeyID 0x8635ed79 | 44 D0 22 64 94 BF A4 B5 4D 41 D4 15 06 B9 6B F2
Summer0487 1996
In article <320D6D...@earthlink.net>, rica...@earthlink.net says...
>
>jbag...@fit.edu wrote:
>>
>> Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
>
>You know what. You are full of shit. The Cyrix 6x86 CPU's are the best
>thing next to pentium pros. There cheaper and faster. So if you're
>dumb enough to not buy one instead of the Intel Pentium. You're dumb as
>fuck! You're motherboard probobly doesn't support it and thats why you
>identical hardware and replace one of the processesors with a cyrix 6x86
>. It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
>money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
>before you speak, you dumbshit.
Martin writes:
Way to go, Ricardo !! I'm 100% agree with you, man. I'm using Cyrix 6x86 P120+
in my home and it runs like lightning leaving those Pentium 133s far behind.
The best part, it's cheaper than those slow Pentiums and it's 100% compatible
with Windows 3.1, DOS, Win95, WinNT, you name it !! For more proofs, read
PCWorld magazines. Long Live Cyrix
DemonRaider
FAR OUT MAN <dbr...@cdsnet.net> wrote:
>Ricardo Rodríguez wrote:
>>
>> jbag...@fit.edu wrote:
>> >
>> > Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
>>
>> You know what. You are full of shit. The Cyrix 6x86 CPU's are the best
>> thing next to pentium pros. There cheaper and faster. So if you're
>> dumb enough to not buy one instead of the Intel Pentium. You're dumb as
>> fuck! You're motherboard probobly doesn't support it and thats why you
>> can talk domn about them. Dumbshit. If you take two computers of
>> identical hardware and replace one of the processesors with a cyrix 6x86
>> . It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
>> one now. I have a pentium one hundred now but as sone as I get the
>> money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
>> before you speak, you dumbshit.
>
>Pentium Pros are made for servers they are slowers in some instances than
> the P5 chip. your comparing apples and oranges. The pc world sucks
>because everything is optimized for complex instruction set (cisc) while
>reduced instruction set(risc) could speed up everything... Silicon
>Graphics run Risc and look how fast they are. Risc rocks it just came out
>later than cisc and they kept with the crappy chip architecture we're all
>used to.
Well, I have a Cyrix 6x86-P150 and it flies .... I'm happy with it.
Isn't that what matters ???
Bill Gates
On Sat, 10 Aug 1996 22:21:04 -0700, Ricardo
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rodr=EDguez?= <rica...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>jbag...@fit.edu wrote:
>. It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
>one now. I have a pentium one hundred now but as sone as I get the
>money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
>before you speak, you dumbshit.
Well, by the time you can afford one, it's possible no one will be
selling them. As an employee of a chip reseller, I have seen many of
the loca computer stores (including mine) refuse to sell them because
such a high percentage of the ones sold were returned due to
incompatibility (both hardware and software), substandard performance
(like any rendering or graphic arts programs that are heavily
dependant on FPUs, which includes most everything short of word
processing), and, of course, the infamous heat problem. In other
words, there is a very good reason the chip is so much less than a
Pentium - you get what you pay for. If you're still interested in
getting one, then I hope that you will be among the small pool of
satisfied customers (I know of exactly ONE), but I do STRONGLY
reccommend against it. You will be buying into a processor that will
have a short life expectancy (both individually, and in the market
place), is highly unlikely to be compatible with much of the next
generation software (inluding NT from what I hear), and may cause you
more than what tou saved in headaches.
Kyle Tsui
>On Sat, 10 Aug 1996 22:21:04 -0700, Ricardo
>=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rodr=EDguez?= <rica...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>jbag...@fit.edu wrote:
>>>
>>> Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
>>
>>You know what. You are full of shit. The Cyrix 6x86 CPU's are the best
>>thing next to pentium pros. There cheaper and faster. So if you're
>>dumb enough to not buy one instead of the Intel Pentium. You're dumb as
>>fuck! You're motherboard probobly doesn't support it and thats why you
>>can talk domn about them. Dumbshit. If you take two computers of
>>identical hardware and replace one of the processesors with a cyrix 6x86
>>. It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
>>one now. I have a pentium one hundred now but as sone as I get the
>>money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
>>before you speak, you dumbshit.
>
>
>
> Go look again. The Cyrix chip has an abacus for a
> math co processor...
>It IS FASTER than the equivalent Intel chip until the application
>needs a GOOD MATH COPROCESSOR then it falls REAL short of being a
> PENTIUM RIP OFF. You should really look at sombody elses ads
>besides Cyrix... Like Maybe the review in PC MAGAZINE. That review
>BURNED THE Cyrix... Go buy the Cyrix you deserve it. If the only
>research you can do is read the manufacturers propaganda than you
>truly need to buy that hockey puck.
> GOOD LUCK IN THE CONTEST...
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> /notes from a one legged duck/ ^
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So what??? Most users don't use their systems like that! If you're
running AutoCad and shit, why don't you just upgrade to a Pentium
Pro?? It's faster than the Cyrix AND the Pentium!
Learn to read magazines. PC Magazine didn't burn the 6x86. In fact,
they said "its the fastest Windows 95 machine out there!" Gee....that
really sounds like they burned it........
Jean Goyer
> Martin writes:
>
> Way to go, Ricardo !! I'm 100% agree with you, man. I'm using Cyrix 6x86 P120+
> in my home and it runs like lightning leaving those Pentium 133s far behind.
> The best part, it's cheaper than those slow Pentiums and it's 100% compatible
> with Windows 3.1, DOS, Win95, WinNT, you name it !! For more proofs, read
> PCWorld magazines. Long Live Cyrix
Actually, there are SEVERAL KNOWN problems with the Cyrix 6x86 chips,
some of the more severe ones have to do with the FPU. I'd also like to
compare the rest of the hardware in your system vs that in the Pentiums
you compare your systems with. Yours should actually, in truth, run
sligtly slower than a P133... Unless it has more memory, a faster video
card, or a faster hard disk. But don't kid yourself: 100%
Pentium-compatible the Cyrix AIN'T.
Ed Wensell III aka THE StormRaiser
Read the subject, and clean up the group post list... There are better places
to argue this one... By the time you are all done, the Z80 will end up being
the better chip!! :)
Ed Wensell III aka THE StormRaiser
In article <4um9kd$t...@cdshub.cdc.com>, Jimm...@cdc.com (Jimmy) writes:
>It certainly give me headaches. Reason: It's too damn fast.
>
>I try to install a Chinese Writing pen to Win95 but my win95 just won't boot
>with the pen connected. Find out the reason is my Cyrix 150+ is too fast so
>the drivers won't load. The company send my a driver to *slow* it down and
>now it's working alright. Should count this one to Cyrix's disadvantage?
I had the same problem when trying to hook up my Billabong jacket.. Of course,
there weren't any problems interfacing with my Mister Coffee or 1978 AC Delco
8-track tape player (go figure).
Trestles
big...@microsoft.com (Bill Gates) wrote:
>Well, by the time you can afford one, it's possible no one will be
>selling them. As an employee of a chip reseller, I have seen many of
>the loca computer stores (including mine) refuse to sell them because
>such a high percentage of the ones sold were returned due to
>incompatibility (both hardware and software), substandard performance
>(like any rendering or graphic arts programs that are heavily
>dependant on FPUs, which includes most everything short of word
>processing), and, of course, the infamous heat problem. In other
>words, there is a very good reason the chip is so much less than a
>Pentium - you get what you pay for. If you're still interested in
>getting one, then I hope that you will be among the small pool of
>satisfied customers (I know of exactly ONE), but I do STRONGLY
>reccommend against it. You will be buying into a processor that will
>have a short life expectancy (both individually, and in the market
>place), is highly unlikely to be compatible with much of the next
>generation software (inluding NT from what I hear), and may cause you
>more than what tou saved in headaches.
but I couldn't clear an error on my motherboard that read "static
device resource conflict" It was with one of the cards I had, but
couldn't narrow it down because the board would just burn up after
this error came up. The store burnt up four boards before they just
gave me a refund. I now have a Pentium 133, and although noticebly
slower in Windows95 than my friend's Cyrix P-150+, it's fast enough
for all my games.
Mr.P
On 12 Aug 1996 03:49:33 GMT, Jimm...@cdc.com (Jimmy) wrote:
>It certainly give me headaches. Reason: It's too damn fast.
>I try to install a Chinese Writing pen to Win95 but my win95 just won't boot
>with the pen connected. Find out the reason is my Cyrix 150+ is too fast so
>the drivers won't load. The company send my a driver to *slow* it down and
>now it's working alright. Should count this one to Cyrix's disadvantage?
Umm.. not really.
If Windows 95 is incapable of providing a processor-speed-independent
means of talking to drivers, or if the driver is just plain shoddy,
then it will not be the fault of the Cyrix chip.
I thought only old games had speed problems. These days, applications
suck up the new speed with zeal, while games incorporate speed
maintainers to keep the game speed constant between even a 486DX2/66
and a PP200.
I'd say the makers of the drivers are to blame.
E. Scott Heinis
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 03:26:19 GMT, an411???@anon.penet.fi (Trestles)
wrote:
I don't know what the hell these morons are talking about, but I've
had NOTHING but luck with the Cyrix 6x86 CPUs. I, personally, have a
P166+ in my machine and have had no problems AT ALL. Our computer
store started carrying the 6x86 4 months ago, and it is currently
out-selling the Pentium at a 6 to 1 ratio. As long as you use one of
the motherboards that Cyrix has certified for the CPU, you should have
no problems.
As far as the comment about its unsuitability for graphic arts
applications, I use my computer daily with AutoCAD 12, Corel DRAW! 3
and several other highly FPU dependant applications and am extremely
happy with its performance.
To answer the question about 'static resource conflict', that has to
do with the PCI allocation of IRQ's in the CMOS PCI setup, and is
easily fixed by a competant technician. I have personally run into
this error, and have fixed it with no problem. The only reason a
motherboard or CPUI might 'burn up', would be due to improper cpu
voltage selection. Cyrix CPU's MUST be set up for Standard or VR Spec
(3.4v). If you set it up for VRE (3.5v), you will either burn out the
CPU, or the voltage regulators on the motherboard.
Also mentioned was software incompatibility. I run System Commander
on the shop computer, along with Win 95, NT 3.51, and DOS/Win 3.11 and
haven't had any problems so far.....
I guess my summary of this is make sure you are buying from a
QUALIFIED retailer that sells the CPU with the right MB (Cyrix
approved) and fan (Thermalloy -- Cyrix ships it with the chip), sets
up the motherboard properly and is an AUTHORIZED Cyrix retailer.
There is ALWAYS the possibility that you got ahold of a black market
CPU that has been re-screened to say it was a higher speed.
If you have any questions at all about the Cyrix 6x86 and 5x86 CPUs,
call 1-800-GO-CYRIX.
Golden Eagle
kba...@southeast.net wrote in article
<320ebfd1...@news.southeast.net>...
> On Sat, 10 Aug 1996 06:41:29 GMT, jbag...@fit.edu wrote:
>
> >Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
>
> Hmmm, I just got a cyrix 166, and could'nt be happier.
>
> 1. It was about $300 cheaper
>
> 2. It's VERY fast.
>
> 3. I shopped hard, and none of the vendors here are having any
> problems as long as they use GOOD motherboards.
>
> 4. Quake runs GREAT.
>
>
I just bought a new Cyrix as well and it flies...no problems with ANY games
or applications. As a matter of fact Intel can go blow since my Cyrix beats
my buddies 166 when we are running reports in Microsoft Access! Go figure.
Cyrix is great as far as I am concerned with the 6x86 technology. If it
wasn't good, Intel would have never sued them claiming their chip was
better because they improved on Intel technology.
I think Cyrix has beat Intel on this one...even though their 486 chip was a
flop.
Cheers
Smoke Crack and Worship Satan
In article <320ebfd1...@news.southeast.net>, kba...@southeast.net wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 1996 06:41:29 GMT, jbag...@fit.edu wrote:
>
> >Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
>
> Hmmm, I just got a cyrix 166, and could'nt be happier.
>
> 1. It was about $300 cheaper
>
> 2. It's VERY fast.
>
> 3. I shopped hard, and none of the vendors here are having any
> problems as long as they use GOOD motherboards.
>
> 4. Quake runs GREAT.
>
I agree, Cyrix 6x86 chips are a good deal now. When they first came out, they
cost the same as the equivalent Intel chip (ie 6x86 P133+ price = P5-133 price)
which was ridiculous. But now that they are significantly cheaper and offering
the same performance, I say more power to 'em.
Current prices at www.thechipmerchant.com:
P5-166 intel, $399
P166+ Cyrix, $258
Cyrix chip is $141 cheaper.
P6-200 intel, $584.
It remains to be seen what Cyrix is going to do about P6-class processors. 6x86
chips definitely compete well with Pentiums, but a Pentium Pro blows it out of
the water, especially under NT and in floating point stuff. And FYI if you
haven't checked prices, a complete P6-200 system is running about $150-$200 more
than a P5-166 system from www.dell.com or www.gateway.com. Kinda makes it a no
brainer at the high end.
I hear that Cyrix has some really cool plans for P6-class chips that plug into
existing P5 sockets, which would be great for upgrading and definitely
capitalize on the one weakness of the P6-- requiring a new motherboard.
Chris Drake
My brother and I have run the Cyrix head to head against the Intel. We
both have identical motherboards (Super Micro P55T2S).
These boards have the Triton II chipset (rev HX), 512k Synchronous
Pipeline Burst cache, and 48 meg EDO ram.
The difference : he is an electrical engineer and uses Math Cad a lot
so he opted for the Intel P166. I don't use many apps that rely
heavily on the FPU so I opted for the Cyrix P166+.
As expected, the Intel's FPU is better than the Cyrix. However, the
big surprise was the bus interface. When it came to memory acces times
the Cyrix was MUCH faster across the board than the Intel (L1, L2,
and main memory). It appears that Cyrix decided to optimize the hell
out of their bus interface at the expense of the FPU.
My brother now wishes he had bought the Cyrix. His feeling is that
even a program that uses the FPU heavily wil spend far more time
shuffling data to and from memory.
You'll have to draw your own conclusions but I will say this, I
replaced an Intel Pentium 90 with my new setup and Quake (which is
supposed to rely heavily on the FPU) runs MUCH faster on my new
setup...even with a Cyrix. Now this may just be due to the updated
motherboard and the faster processor, however, the point (for me
anyway) is that even with a lesser FPU the program runs great in SVGA.
If anyone is interested in the actual number from our test let me know
and I will pass them along. I would have included them here but I
didn't write them down :-) I'll have to call my brother and get them.
Chris
Chuck Koleczek
> By the time you are all done, the Z80 will end up being
> the better chip!! :)
Boy, are you a fool! The 8088 kicks the Z80's ASS!
:)
Digital Quartz
This is straight out of the "Cyrix 6x86 FAQ":
Q. When I run 3D Studio and Clipper on my 6x86-based PC, the programs are
stalling. What's the solution?
A. Both 3D Studio and Clipper Applications use software timing loops
in the code. The 6x86 processor executes these loop instructions faster
than previous x86 CPUs which interferes with timing dependent code in both
software programs. Solution: Download the pipeloop.exe file and put it in
your autoexec.bat file. This utility inserts a delay in the loop
instruction. The utility is not memory resident. NOTE: This file may not
correct all timing issues. Other solutions will be listed when available.
--
Digital Quartz - qua...@ftn.net \O
------------------------------------------------------- |-
Call Binaric Dreams BBS (819) 595-4595 >\
http://www.ftn.net/~quartz/bindrem/index.html
GAT d- s+: a?--- C++++ >UL++++ P+ L>+++++ E? W+++ N+ o? K? w !O M- V? PS+
!PE Y+>++ PGP>+ t++* 5+ X+ R+ tv-->--- b+ DI? D+ G e-*>+++++ h!>++ r++ y?
Digital Quartz
Trestles wrote:
> I'd have to agree with Bill. I had a Cyrix P-150+ for about a week,
> but I couldn't clear an error on my motherboard that read "static
> device resource conflict" It was with one of the cards I had, but
> couldn't narrow it down because the board would just burn up after
> this error came up. The store burnt up four boards before they just
> gave me a refund. I now have a Pentium 133, and although noticebly
> slower in Windows95 than my friend's Cyrix P-150+, it's fast enough
> for all my games.
I'm running a Cyrix 6x86 P-150+ on a Tyan Titan III motherboard and
I've not had a single complaint yet. Everything runs smoothly. In fact, I
used to run on a Pentium 60 with a Pheonix motherboard and I had a number of
problems with device conflicts that just didn't make sense (but that was a
motherboard error, not a processor error). So far, given the performance
numbers I've seen comparing Intel chips to Cyrix chips, it seems Cyrix is the
better choice. Even PC magazine agrees on that note, in an article
apropriately entitled "Cyrix may be the David to the Intel Goliath".
It's about bloody time someone broke Intel's monopoly on processors.
My other praise for Cyrix is their web page. Go take a look at it
sometime, it's the most informative and to-the-point page I've seen in a long
while. Intel has too many fanciful graphics that mask over it's bad
organization. It'd take weeks of searching to find what you're looking for on
Intel's page.
bad boy
to emulate CISC (like when it runs Win95). Get Pentium Pro and stick
Linux or NT 4.0 on it and you'll be amazed by the power compared to P5
or Mac (barf) - even tho PPC are also RISC - or anything else in that
category.
------------------------------------------------
bad boy
bad...@globalcafe.ch
http://home.iprolink.ch/~sharaf
Big Bob
On Sun, 11 Aug 1996 18:27:41 GMT, big...@microsoft.com (Bill Gates)
wrote something like:
>On Sat, 10 Aug 1996 22:21:04 -0700, Ricardo
>=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rodr=EDguez?= <rica...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>jbag...@fit.edu wrote:
>
>>. It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
>>one now. I have a pentium one hundred now but as sone as I get the
>>money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
>>before you speak, you dumbshit.
I wish we could keep this stuff out of the binaries newsgroups...now I
feel compelled to comply even though I didn't want to see this
argument here in the first place.
>Well, by the time you can afford one, it's possible no one will be
>selling them. As an employee of a chip reseller, I have seen many of
>the loca computer stores (including mine) refuse to sell them because
>such a high percentage of the ones sold were returned due to
>incompatibility (both hardware and software), substandard performance
>(like any rendering or graphic arts programs that are heavily
>dependant on FPUs, which includes most everything short of word
>processing), and, of course, the infamous heat problem.
I may not have your impressive title of computer store sales clerk,
but I do have several pentiums (60 MHz up to 166), and a Cyrix 166+. I
have not found any problems with incompatibilities (either hardware or
software) for either company's CPU. I know that the Cyrix FPU is
weaker than Intel's, but the only time I actually was able to notice
this difference was in a single application (quake). I am sure there
are more FPU intensive apps out there, it is just I never use them in
my day to day life. BTW, the graphic arts programs that I run (by
Adobe) run beautifully onthe Cyrix. I can imagine that CADs won't be
as fast as Intel's, but this is only assuming CAD's are FPU intensive.
As far as this "infamous heat problem", I can't imagine it being worse
than Intel's 60 Mhz Pentium...and I've had that computer since the
first month of pentium production without any problems.
>getting one, then I hope that you will be among the small pool of
>satisfied customers (I know of exactly ONE), but I do STRONGLY
>reccommend against it. You will be buying into a processor that will
>have a short life expectancy (both individually, and in the market
>place), is highly unlikely to be compatible with much of the next
>generation software (inluding NT from what I hear), and may cause you
>more than what tou saved in headaches.
Well, make that TWO satisfied Cyrix customers that you know :)
Seriously though, I don't think the Cyrix CPU will have any shorter a
life span than the Intel CPU. What makes you assume this? You just
have to get a CPU that is appropriate for the job...if you want a
solid FPU, buy Intel, if you want it for non-FPU performance, buy
Cyrix as this is where it shines. BTW, If you check the Ziff-Davis
Benchmarks and Win tests with averages addendum, you will find that
you assumption that everything uses FPU (except wordprocessors) to be
wrong. I've also heard a rumor that the current build of Windows NT
4.0 does not work with Cyrix's current chip. BUT, I'll reserve
judgement until I either see for myself or I hear from one of the
companies. There are too many rumors on the net, I don't think
circulating hearsay will help people make informed purchasing
decisions.
Hank Janssen
E. Scott Heinis (star...@cyberstreet.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 03:26:19 GMT, an411???@anon.penet.fi (Trestles)
: wrote:
: >big...@microsoft.com (Bill Gates) wrote:
: >>Well, by the time you can afford one, it's possible no one will be
: >>selling them. As an employee of a chip reseller, I have seen many of
: >>the loca computer stores (including mine) refuse to sell them because
: >>such a high percentage of the ones sold were returned due to
: >>incompatibility (both hardware and software), substandard performance
: >>(like any rendering or graphic arts programs that are heavily
: >>dependant on FPUs, which includes most everything short of word
: >>processing), and, of course, the infamous heat problem. In other
: >>words, there is a very good reason the chip is so much less than a
: >>Pentium - you get what you pay for. If you're still interested in
: >>getting one, then I hope that you will be among the small pool of
: >>satisfied customers (I know of exactly ONE), but I do STRONGLY
: >>reccommend against it. You will be buying into a processor that will
: >>have a short life expectancy (both individually, and in the market
: >>place), is highly unlikely to be compatible with much of the next
: >>generation software (inluding NT from what I hear), and may cause you
: >>more than what tou saved in headaches.
: >I'd have to agree with Bill. I had a Cyrix P-150+ for about a week,
: >but I couldn't clear an error on my motherboard that read "static
: >device resource conflict" It was with one of the cards I had, but
: >couldn't narrow it down because the board would just burn up after
: >this error came up. The store burnt up four boards before they just
: >gave me a refund. I now have a Pentium 133, and although noticebly
: >slower in Windows95 than my friend's Cyrix P-150+, it's fast enough
: >for all my games.
: >
: I don't know what the hell these morons are talking about, but I've
: had NOTHING but luck with the Cyrix 6x86 CPUs. I, personally, have a
: P166+ in my machine and have had no problems AT ALL. Our computer
: store started carrying the 6x86 4 months ago, and it is currently
: out-selling the Pentium at a 6 to 1 ratio. As long as you use one of
: the motherboards that Cyrix has certified for the CPU, you should have
: no problems.
: As far as the comment about its unsuitability for graphic arts
: applications, I use my computer daily with AutoCAD 12, Corel DRAW! 3
: and several other highly FPU dependant applications and am extremely
--SNIP--
I just put in my new tomcatI and P166+ two weeks ago. I have had no
problems running anything yet. (except for quake, which has been deleted
from my drive anyway. I refuse to buy a Pentium for 150 more so I can run a
fluffed up version of Doom)
We have had hot weater here in the last two weeks, 85+ temp. And i have no
aiconditioner in my house. Yet the new processor and MB haver performed
without a hitch. My vote goes to the Cyrix processor.
--
------------------ http://www.eskimo.com/~hjanssen --------------------
Hank Janssen. | A Degree Only means You have proven
Sentient Systems. Seattle,WA | to know where to look up an answer
EMAIL: hjan...@eskimo.com | to a known question.
Mr.P
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 11:47:48 -0400, Digital Quartz <qua...@ftn.net>
wrote:
>Q. When I run 3D Studio and Clipper on my 6x86-based PC, the programs are
>stalling. What's the solution?
> A. Both 3D Studio and Clipper Applications use software timing loops
>in the code. The 6x86 processor executes these loop instructions faster
>than previous x86 CPUs which interferes with timing dependent code in both
>software programs. Solution: Download the pipeloop.exe file and put it in
It makes me wonder how the software runs on a 386 then. Software
timing loops aren't all that useful anymore, given the unpredictable
nature of new processors.
Solarius
Peter Collins wrote:
>
> >> > Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
> >>
> >> thing next to pentium pros. There cheaper and faster. So if you're
> >> dumb enough to not buy one instead of the Intel Pentium. You're dumb as
> >> fuck! You're motherboard probobly doesn't support it and thats why you
> >> can talk domn about them. Dumbshit. If you take two computers of
> >> identical hardware and replace one of the processesors with a cyrix 6x86
> >> one now. I have a pentium one hundred now but as sone as I get the
> >> money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
> >> before you speak, you dumbshit.
> >
> > the P5 chip. your comparing apples and oranges. The pc world sucks
> >because everything is optimized for complex instruction set (cisc) while
> >reduced instruction set(risc) could speed up everything... Silicon
> >Graphics run Risc and look how fast they are. Risc rocks it just came out
> >later than cisc and they kept with the crappy chip architecture we're all
> >used to.
>
>
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+> | Peter Collins email: coll...@ee.cit.ac.nz |
> | call my raytracing home page at: http://www.ee.cit.ac.nz/~collinpe |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+yeah RISC is the future .. Intel didn't realize that and nexgen kicked
the shit out of their crappy chips.. now NexGen doesn't exist b/c it was
bought by AMD so for my money AMD or the AMD/NexGen systems are the way
to go...
Rob K
On Tue, 13 Aug 1996 17:11:29 GMT, hjan...@eskimo.com (Hank Janssen)
wrote:
I too have had no problems with my P-166+ as of yet. Everything I
have tried to run has worked great (including Quake~!!! although it
sucks compaired to duke3d imho) I don't see any reason to pay more
for the Intel name when this one is faster. Rob
Peter Collins
>>> Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
>>
>>You know what. You are full of shit. The Cyrix 6x86 CPU's are the best
>>thing next to pentium pros. There cheaper and faster. So if you're
>>dumb enough to not buy one instead of the Intel Pentium. You're dumb as
>>fuck! You're motherboard probobly doesn't support it and thats why you
>>can talk domn about them. Dumbshit. If you take two computers of
>>identical hardware and replace one of the processesors with a cyrix 6x86
>>. It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
>>one now. I have a pentium one hundred now but as sone as I get the
>>money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
>>before you speak, you dumbshit.
>
>in my home and it runs like lightning leaving those Pentium 133s far behind.
>The best part, it's cheaper than those slow Pentiums and it's 100% compatible
>with Windows 3.1, DOS, Win95, WinNT, you name it !! For more proofs, read
>PCWorld magazines. Long Live Cyrix
post some benchmark results then
real ones like doombench, coolbench
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Peter Collins email: coll...@ee.cit.ac.nz |
| call my raytracing home page at: http://www.ee.cit.ac.nz/~collinpe |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Peter Collins
>> > Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
>>
>> You know what. You are full of shit. The Cyrix 6x86 CPU's are the best
>> thing next to pentium pros. There cheaper and faster. So if you're
>> dumb enough to not buy one instead of the Intel Pentium. You're dumb as
>> fuck! You're motherboard probobly doesn't support it and thats why you
>> can talk domn about them. Dumbshit. If you take two computers of
>> identical hardware and replace one of the processesors with a cyrix 6x86
>> . It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
>> one now. I have a pentium one hundred now but as sone as I get the
>> money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
>> before you speak, you dumbshit.
>
> the P5 chip. your comparing apples and oranges. The pc world sucks
>because everything is optimized for complex instruction set (cisc) while
>reduced instruction set(risc) could speed up everything... Silicon
>Graphics run Risc and look how fast they are. Risc rocks it just came out
>later than cisc and they kept with the crappy chip architecture we're all
>used to.
SGI's aren't that fast... the graphics are tho.
go...@usmc.com
Digital Quartz <qua...@ftn.net> wrote:
(stuff deleted)
> My other praise for Cyrix is their web page. Go take a look at it
>sometime, it's the most informative and to-the-point page I've seen in a long
I'd love to, but what is the URL????
Your_Name_Here
Ricardo =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rodr=EDguez?= wrote:
>
> jbag...@fit.edu wrote:
> >
> > Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
>
> You know what. You are full of shit. The Cyrix 6x86 CPU's are the best
> thing next to pentium pros. There cheaper and faster. So if you're
> dumb enough to not buy one instead of the Intel Pentium. You're dumb as
> fuck! You're motherboard probobly doesn't support it and thats why you
> can talk domn about them. Dumbshit. If you take two computers of
> identical hardware and replace one of the processesors with a cyrix 6x86
> . It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
> one now. I have a pentium one hundred now but as sone as I get the
> money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
> before you speak, you dumbshit.
Hey Stupid,
go learn proper English before you start cursing. Please consider that
a lot of kids read the messages in this newsgroup!
Kind Regards,
Andy
Your_Name_Here
Your_Name_Here
mat
the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ does not support 3D studio and autocad v.13 with a
plotter ; you should consider that.
Major Error
As is the fate of all clones, there are many known incompatibilities
between Cyrix, AMD, and iNTEL CPUs. Unfortunately, I can't find the
article, but there were some common apps that just would not run on any
processor other than an iNTEL. I believe it had to do with the Cyrix and
AMD CPU command set and certain pathways that make up the processor that
are implemented differently.
As long as there are clones of any major harware manufacturer (remember
IBM?) there will always be incompatibilities.
Crimson Wizard
On Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:10:24 -0700, Your_Name_Here
<yo...@email.address.here> wrote:
>Ricardo =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rodr=EDguez?= wrote:
>>
>> jbag...@fit.edu wrote:
>> >
>> > Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
>>
>> You know what. You are full of shit. The Cyrix 6x86 CPU's are the best
>> thing next to pentium pros. There cheaper and faster. So if you're
>> dumb enough to not buy one instead of the Intel Pentium. You're dumb as
>> fuck! You're motherboard probobly doesn't support it and thats why you
>> can talk domn about them. Dumbshit. If you take two computers of
>> identical hardware and replace one of the processesors with a cyrix 6x86
>> . It'll fucking smoke the pentium leave it in the dust. I don't have
>> one now. I have a pentium one hundred now but as sone as I get the
>> money I'm gonna get either the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ or the P200+. Think
>> before you speak, you dumbshit.
>
>
>Hey Stupid,
>
>go learn proper English before you start cursing. Please consider that
>a lot of kids read the messages in this newsgroup!
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Andy
(posted three times)
Hey Stupid,
Learn to post messages in the newsgroups before you go posting
messages :), what are you from AOL or something?
Jason Weiler
Solarius (Sola...@concentric.net) wrote:
: Peter Collins wrote:
: >
: > >> > Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
I wholeheartedly agree. I'll pay more for the assurance that everything
will work. No emulators, no nonsense.
<Pathetic rant by a clueless newbie deleted>
: > >Pentium Pros are made for servers they are slowers in some instances than
: > > the P5 chip. your comparing apples and oranges. The pc world sucks
: > >because everything is optimized for complex instruction set (cisc) while
: > >reduced instruction set(risc) could speed up everything...
You seem to think that RISC is some sort of panacea for the computer
industry. Do you know WHY RISC is currently a better way to go than
CISC?
(one answer among many: more rudamentary instructions can be
made to execute in the same length of time and therefore are
easily pipelinable and (in some cases) executible in parallel)
How does one optimize for an instruction set? You don't.
Optimization is something that happens on top of the
instruction set. You may have a case for porting software
where cross-platform code-reusage is involved, but somehow
I doubt that was on your mind at the time.
: > >Silicon
: > >Graphics run Risc and look how fast they are. Risc rocks it just came out
: > >later than cisc and they kept with the crappy chip architecture we're all
: > >used to.
: >
: > SGI's aren't that fast... the graphics are tho.
I agree, SGI's aren't that fast. If you strip off all the specialized
hardware, they are easily outperformed by even a 486 in some cases.
Their specialized hardware, however, is amazing. IMO
laters folks,
-JW
cheep guy
sha...@iprolink.ch (bad boy) wrote:
>FAR OUT MAN <dbr...@cdsnet.net> wrote:
>>Pentium Pros are made for servers they are slowers in some instances than
>> the P5 chip. your comparing apples and oranges. The pc world sucks
>>because everything is optimized for complex instruction set (cisc) while
>>reduced instruction set(risc) could speed up everything... Silicon
>>Graphics run Risc and look how fast they are. Risc rocks it just came out
>>later than cisc and they kept with the crappy chip architecture we're all
>>used to.
>
>Pentium Pro is only slower (and not that much) than P5 when it needs
>to emulate CISC (like when it runs Win95). Get Pentium Pro and stick
>Linux or NT 4.0 on it and you'll be amazed by the power compared to P5
>or Mac (barf) - even tho PPC are also RISC - or anything else in that
>category.
>------------------------------------------------
>bad boy
>bad...@globalcafe.ch
>http://home.iprolink.ch/~sharaf
anyone who supports intel is a fucking dip shit
youre just pissed because intel had the upper hand and lost it to
CYRIX!
THE CYRIX 6X86 200+ IS THE FASTEST CHIP YOU CAN BUY FOR TODAYS
SOFTWARE IN CYSK OR RISK!
Cudworth Matthew D
: : > >> > Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real thing.
:
: I wholeheartedly agree. I'll pay more for the assurance that everything
: will work. No emulators, no nonsense.
Me too ...
: : > >Pentium Pros are made for servers they are slowers in some instances than
: : > > the P5 chip. your comparing apples and oranges. The pc world sucks
: : > >because everything is optimized for complex instruction set (cisc) while
: : > >reduced instruction set(risc) could speed up everything...
Whether or not RISC is faster than CISC is still an
open question. There is direct relationship between Mhz speed
and the area of the chip. i.e. large chip (generally CISC) means
a lower Mhz rating. As far a Pent Pro being slower than P5 - most
true !! To fully exploit a processor you need to have native code.
This is why a Power PC chip seems faster thean a P5 (it is also
a better chip - another story.) If you have native code for a
pentium (using the second 486 style pipeline) you can improve
the executiuon speed by upto 30% (Win95 uses 385 code - hence
the slowness). Anyway back to CISC - making fast CISC chips
makes a HOT chip - remember the problems they had with P5's
when they first came out !!. RISC chips are generally faster
as they often have huge numbers of regesters (128 in some cases)
and by having fixed length instructions they use pipelining much
more effectively.
NOTE though as far as speed goes - the processor is the least of
your problems. Good algorithms are most important (hence why a
apple IIe beat Cray supercomputer is the computer chess champs!
and why Linux is so much faster than WinNT,95,MacOS and most
comercial UN*X) good I/O,mem,harddrive and graphics will make
a 'faster' computer.
MAtt
-- Get a real OS - get LINUX --
jza
I think that cyrix is the worst piece of shit i have ever seen. It
can suck the asshole excretions right out of my asshole. it is almost
as bad as having a mac or a commodore.
----J---------Z---------A-----
jza [ma...@shore.intercom.net]
Thender
in Kilobytes of ram) and a whole bunch of games. now if your talking
about the amiga your wrong. the amiga rocks esp. the new ones coming out
soon they are great for evrything their just passed over becauese they
didn't win the computer wars and don't appeal to many Americans except
those with 3d animation on their minds
Thender
jza wrote:
>
> I think that cyrix is the worst piece of shit i have ever seen. It
> can suck the asshole excretions right out of my asshole. it is almost
> as bad as having a mac or a commodore.
>
> ----J---------Z---------A-----
> jza [ma...@shore.intercom.net]
Thender
>
> I wholeheartedly agree. I'll pay more for the assurance that everything
> will work. No emulators, no nonsense.
>
>
> : > > the P5 chip. your comparing apples and oranges. The pc world sucks
> : > >because everything is optimized for complex instruction set (cisc) while
> : > >reduced instruction set(risc) could speed up everything...
>
> industry. Do you know WHY RISC is currently a better way to go than
> CISC?
>
> (one answer among many: more rudamentary instructions can be
> made to execute in the same length of time and therefore are
> easily pipelinable and (in some cases) executible in parallel)
>
> How does one optimize for an instruction set? You don't.
> Optimization is something that happens on top of the
> instruction set. You may have a case for porting software
> where cross-platform code-reusage is involved, but somehow
> I doubt that was on your mind at the time.
>
> : > >Graphics run Risc and look how fast they are. Risc rocks it just came out
> : > >later than cisc and they kept with the crappy chip architecture we're all
> : > >used to.
> : > SGI's aren't that fast... the graphics are tho.
>
> I agree, SGI's aren't that fast. If you strip off all the specialized
> hardware, they are easily outperformed by even a 486 in some cases.
> Their specialized hardware, however, is amazing. IMO
>
> laters folks,
> -JW
implement it 's use in their r&d. Right know the only risc arcitecture in
pc computers is the AMD 586 and if o/s systems and programs were
optimized for it's use along with common day cisc.
On another note each piece of our hardware uses part of the cpu.
The new cd-rom drives 8x and 10x use 60 to 80% of the cpu to run. if
companies were to set up dedicated processors for components the up in
speed would be great. without the dedicated draw on the central
processor. the message scrutinized above was mine.
later
Stefan
>>go learn proper English before you start cursing. Please consider that
>>a lot of kids read the messages in this newsgroup!
>Hey Stupid,
>
>Learn to post messages in the newsgroups before you go posting
>messages :), what are you from AOL or something?
Am I the only one who can't understand what this guy's trying to say?
I think I'll go teach myself to tell time because I've been telling
too much time lately...
Stefan
>anyone who supports intel is a fucking dip shit
>youre just pissed because intel had the upper hand and lost it to
>CYRIX!
>THE CYRIX 6X86 200+ IS THE FASTEST CHIP YOU CAN BUY FOR TODAYS
>SOFTWARE IN CYSK OR RISK!
I support intel! Cyrix doesn't have a cool sound! hehehe
a...@west.net
>the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ does not support 3D studio and autocad v.13 with a
>plotter ; you should consider that.
Thats not true. I'm running both on my Cyrix 166 right now. All you
need is a file called pipeloop.exe from Cyrix that will slow down part
of the processor temporarily for 3ds 4 to load, because it is too fast
and 3ds4 cant register it or something.
Crimson Wizard
On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 07:22:26 GMT, an66...@anon.penet.fi (Stefan)
wrote:
Heh, that was me :) I was just commenting on his three identical
posts in a row :P
Aneurysm
> >> the P5 chip. your comparing apples and oranges. The pc world sucks
> >>because everything is optimized for complex instruction set (cisc) while
> >>Graphics run Risc and look how fast they are. Risc rocks it just came out
> >>later than cisc and they kept with the crappy chip architecture we're all
> >>used to.
> >
> >to emulate CISC (like when it runs Win95). Get Pentium Pro and stick
> >Linux or NT 4.0 on it and you'll be amazed by the power compared to P5
> >or Mac (barf) - even tho PPC are also RISC - or anything else in that
> >category.
>
> >------------------------------------------------
> >bad boy
> >bad...@globalcafe.ch
> >http://home.iprolink.ch/~sharaf
>
> youre just pissed because intel had the upper hand and lost it to
> CYRIX!
> THE CYRIX 6X86 200+ IS THE FASTEST CHIP YOU CAN BUY FOR TODAYS
> SOFTWARE IN CYSK OR RISK!
Chill with that chip shit, the FPU sucks on the Cyrix
chips. Sure, it may to most of its math, faster than a REAL
pentium-200, but the co-processor, FPU, the thing that does
the floating-point math, its much slower than a pentium 150
fpu. FPU is used extensivly in most 3D games, cad programs,
or any processor intensive program you'll probably run.
But honestly, I'd rather have the Cyrix chip too.... fuck intel.
Miroslav Karas
On 14 Aug 1996 22:42:37 GMT, cud...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Cudworth
Matthew D) wrote:
: : > >> > Forget the compatibles - trust me. Just get the real
thing.
:
: I wholeheartedly agree. I'll pay more for the assurance that
everything
: will work. No emulators, no nonsense.
Me too ...
: : > >Pentium Pros are made for servers they are slowers in some
instances than
: : > > the P5 chip. your comparing apples and oranges. The pc world
sucks
: : > >because everything is optimized for complex instruction set
(cisc) while
: : > >reduced instruction set(risc) could speed up everything...
Whether or not RISC is faster than CISC is still an
open question. There is direct relationship between Mhz speed
and the area of the chip. i.e. large chip (generally CISC) means
a lower Mhz rating. As far a Pent Pro being slower than P5 - most
true !! To fully exploit a processor you need to have native code.
This is why a Power PC chip seems faster thean a P5 (it is also
a better chip - another story.) If you have native code for a
pentium (using the second 486 style pipeline) you can improve
the executiuon speed by upto 30% (Win95 uses 385 code - hence
the slowness). Anyway back to CISC - making fast CISC chips
makes a HOT chip - remember the problems they had with P5's
when they first came out !!. RISC chips are generally faster
as they often have huge numbers of regesters (128 in some cases)
and by having fixed length instructions they use pipelining much
more effectively.
NOTE though as far as speed goes - the processor is the least of
your problems. Good algorithms are most important (hence why a
apple IIe beat Cray supercomputer is the computer chess champs!
and why Linux is so much faster than WinNT,95,MacOS and most
comercial UN*X) good I/O,mem,harddrive and graphics will make
a 'faster' computer.
MAtt
-- Get a real OS - get LINUX --
I thing about doing this but I am not sure that there is version of
Linux for CYRIX 6x86 jet. If it is let me know.
Kevin L.
Hey Andy, why don't you learn how to use the Newsgroup reader before you go
and post 3 identical posts?
>
> Hey Stupid,
>
> go learn proper English before you start cursing. Please consider that
> a lot of kids read the messages in this newsgroup!
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Andy
>
RTM van Dijk
On 14 Aug 1996 17:09:36 GMT, "Major Error" <cst...@phoenix.kent.edu>
wrote:
What about the incompatibility of Cyrix??? I've tried a 166 Cyrix. The
speed was impressive (Comparing to a P133) But 3d Studio release 4 did
very strange things. Consulting Autodesk and the only thing they sayed
was "Sorry only Intel"
Rene
vanf
"Major Error" <cst...@phoenix.kent.edu> wrote:
>
>As is the fate of all clones, there are many known incompatibilities
>between Cyrix, AMD, and iNTEL CPUs. Unfortunately, I can't find the
>article, but there were some common apps that just would not run on any
>processor other than an iNTEL. I believe it had to do with the Cyrix and
>AMD CPU command set and certain pathways that make up the processor that
>are implemented differently.
> As long as there are clones of any major harware manufacturer (remember
>IBM?) there will always be incompatibilities.
>
See last paragraph Re:- Cyrix P166+
The Pentium 200: the next step in performance
by Andrew Leonard and Seogju Lee (6/10/96)
Intel has just introduced its latest, 200-MHz version of the
Pentium processor. The past few Pentium upgrades--from 133
MHz to 150 MHz to 166 MHz--have yielded relatively small
increases in real-world performance. So when we tested four
preproduction Pentium 200 systems from Dell, Hymco, and CLR,
we were hoping for more.
The four 200-MHz Pentium systems we examined outperformed
the 166-MHz Pentium machines we've tested (on average) by
about 10 percent. That's far less than the jump from 166 MHz to
200 MHz would suggest. (The reason: the bus speed stays fixed
at 66 MHz.) Fortunately, the small boost in performance comes
at a reasonable price. For example, the Dell Dimension XPS
P200s--the hottest 200-MHz machine we looked at--costs just
$230 more than an identically configured 166-MHz Dell machine.
A few of the preproduction machines we tested proved flaky.
Some machines crashed while running common applications;
others failed to perform on a par with our expectations. In fact,
we dropped two systems from our review due to inconsistent
performance. Expect manufacturers to smooth out the rough
edges before the systems reach your desktop.
To get the most out of these machines, pay careful attention to the
components they're built with. Faster chipsets, such as the Intel
430HX and 430VX, add zip to the existing Pentium architecture.
They help system performance by moving information around
different parts of the PC simultaneously.
The 430VX works with SDRAM (synchronous dynamic RAM),
which uses a different clocking mechanism to boost memory
access speeds. The prices manufacturers pay for SDRAM are
dropping, and some analysts expect the faster RAM to sell for the
same price as EDO RAM in this year. The fastest 200-MHz PC
we tested, the Dell Dimension XPS P200s, uses the 430VX
chipset and has 16MB of SDRAM.
Our initial testing also proves that Intel can't squeeze enough
speed out of the Pentium architecture to shake the 133-MHz
Cyrix 6x86 off its tail. A hot Cyrix machine we benchmarked
recently, Sys Technology's Performance C166+, is in a virtual tie
with the fastest Pentium 200 we tested. At this writing, it appears
that Intel's only retort--other than the Pentium Pro, which is
slower than the Pentium with 16-bit apps--will be a new version
of the Pentium designed to speed multimedia tasks, due out by the
end of the year.
Hope this helps
Miroslav Karas
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 06:33:23 GMT, star...@cyberstreet.com (E. Scott
Heinis) wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 03:26:19 GMT, an411???@anon.penet.fi (Trestles)
>wrote:
>
>>big...@microsoft.com (Bill Gates) wrote:
>>>Well, by the time you can afford one, it's possible no one will be
>>>selling them. As an employee of a chip reseller, I have seen many of
>>>the loca computer stores (including mine) refuse to sell them because
>>>such a high percentage of the ones sold were returned due to
>>>incompatibility (both hardware and software), substandard performance
>>>(like any rendering or graphic arts programs that are heavily
>>>dependant on FPUs, which includes most everything short of word
>>>processing), and, of course, the infamous heat problem. In other
>>>words, there is a very good reason the chip is so much less than a
>>>Pentium - you get what you pay for. If you're still interested in
>>>getting one, then I hope that you will be among the small pool of
>>>satisfied customers (I know of exactly ONE), but I do STRONGLY
>>>reccommend against it. You will be buying into a processor that will
>>>have a short life expectancy (both individually, and in the market
>>>place), is highly unlikely to be compatible with much of the next
>>>generation software (inluding NT from what I hear), and may cause you
>>>more than what tou saved in headaches.
>>I'd have to agree with Bill. I had a Cyrix P-150+ for about a week,
>>but I couldn't clear an error on my motherboard that read "static
>>device resource conflict" It was with one of the cards I had, but
>>couldn't narrow it down because the board would just burn up after
>>this error came up. The store burnt up four boards before they just
>>gave me a refund. I now have a Pentium 133, and although noticebly
>>slower in Windows95 than my friend's Cyrix P-150+, it's fast enough
>>for all my games.
>>
>
>I don't know what the hell these morons are talking about, but I've
>had NOTHING but luck with the Cyrix 6x86 CPUs. I, personally, have a
>P166+ in my machine and have had no problems AT ALL. Our computer
>store started carrying the 6x86 4 months ago, and it is currently
>out-selling the Pentium at a 6 to 1 ratio. As long as you use one of
>the motherboards that Cyrix has certified for the CPU, you should have
>no problems.
>
>As far as the comment about its unsuitability for graphic arts
>applications, I use my computer daily with AutoCAD 12, Corel DRAW! 3
>and several other highly FPU dependant applications and am extremely
>happy with its performance.
>
>To answer the question about 'static resource conflict', that has to
>do with the PCI allocation of IRQ's in the CMOS PCI setup, and is
>easily fixed by a competant technician. I have personally run into
>this error, and have fixed it with no problem. The only reason a
>motherboard or CPUI might 'burn up', would be due to improper cpu
>voltage selection. Cyrix CPU's MUST be set up for Standard or VR Spec
>(3.4v). If you set it up for VRE (3.5v), you will either burn out the
>CPU, or the voltage regulators on the motherboard.
>
>Also mentioned was software incompatibility. I run System Commander
>on the shop computer, along with Win 95, NT 3.51, and DOS/Win 3.11 and
>haven't had any problems so far.....
>
>I guess my summary of this is make sure you are buying from a
>QUALIFIED retailer that sells the CPU with the right MB (Cyrix
>approved) and fan (Thermalloy -- Cyrix ships it with the chip), sets
>up the motherboard properly and is an AUTHORIZED Cyrix retailer.
>There is ALWAYS the possibility that you got ahold of a black market
>CPU that has been re-screened to say it was a higher speed.
>
> If you have any questions at all about the Cyrix 6x86 and 5x86 CPUs,
>call 1-800-GO-CYRIX.
I just was on the page of BYTE magazine (www.byte.com). They tested
the Cyrix 200+ with the NT4.0. They say that it slow down more then
20% comparing to the beta version of NT4.0. They also say that P5 and
P6 do not have this problem.
I have Cyrix 150+ and i just plan to instal the NT 4.0 but in this
situation I probably will wait.
Hades
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:55:45 -0700, Chuck Koleczek <chu...@pbi.net>
wrote:
>> By the time you are all done, the Z80 will end up being
>> the better chip!! :)
>
>
>Boy, are you a fool! The 8088 kicks the Z80's ASS!
>:)
People.............. $3000 for a DEC alpha with
NT4.0.......................HELLO!!!!!
Thomas Crescenzi
I wonder.. is this FPU problem you all are discussing built into _all_ =
Cyrix processors, or only 6x86's? I bought an AST Bravo LC 4/66d with a =
Cyrix 486DX2/66 and it would not run Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, yet =
when I upgraded with an Intel Pentium Overdrive Processor, it now works =
fine.
Greg T.
On Tue, 13 Aug 1996 17:11:29 GMT, hjan...@eskimo.com (Hank Janssen)
wrote:
>E. Scott Heinis (star...@cyberstreet.com) wrote:
>: On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 03:26:19 GMT, an411???@anon.penet.fi (Trestles)
>--SNIP--
>
>I just put in my new tomcatI and P166+ two weeks ago. I have
had no
>problems running anything yet. (except for quake, which has been
deleted
>from my drive anyway. I refuse to buy a Pentium for 150 more so I can
run a
>fluffed up version of Doom)
>
>We have had hot weater here in the last two weeks, 85+ temp. And i
have no
>aiconditioner in my house. Yet the new processor and MB haver
performed
>without a hitch. My vote goes to the Cyrix processor.
>
>
>--
>------------------ http://www.eskimo.com/~hjanssen
--------------------
>Hank Janssen. | A Degree Only means You have proven
>Sentient Systems. Seattle,WA | to know where to look up an answer
>EMAIL: hjan...@eskimo.com | to a known question.
I love my Cyrix P150+. I haven't had a single problem with it and it
smokes on every app and game I've tried. Has anyone seen the
benchmarks from the Cyrix 200? They are very impressive with the
caption pretty much saying that the Cyrix 200+ kicks the Pentium 200
in the ass. I built my current pc with old parts and new parts. Not
one problem but I have heard of problems when you don't use the right
motherboard. For the price/performance I've gotten from this chip I'd
say that my next processor will be a Cyrix as well....Greg
ne...@somewhere.com
On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 15:04:12 GMT, gr...@nando.net (Greg T.) wrote:
>I love my Cyrix P150+. I haven't had a single problem with it and it
>smokes on every app and game I've tried. Has anyone seen the
>benchmarks from the Cyrix 200? They are very impressive with the
>caption pretty much saying that the Cyrix 200+ kicks the Pentium 200
>in the ass. I built my current pc with old parts and new parts. Not
>one problem but I have heard of problems when you don't use the right
>motherboard. For the price/performance I've gotten from this chip I'd
>say that my next processor will be a Cyrix as well....Greg
I have a Cyrix P120+ and it really works nice also. I have an aprooved
also and it runs every app without a hitch.
domino
right on brother!!! is intel finaly seeing the light
Tim Coolong
Digital Quartz <qua...@ftn.net> wrote in article <320F54...@ftn.net>...
> Trestles wrote:
> > I'd have to agree with Bill. I had a Cyrix P-150+ for about a week,
> > but I couldn't clear an error on my motherboard that read "static
> > device resource conflict" It was with one of the cards I had, but
> > couldn't narrow it down because the board would just burn up after
> > this error came up. The store burnt up four boards before they just
> > gave me a refund. I now have a Pentium 133, and although noticebly
> > slower in Windows95 than my friend's Cyrix P-150+, it's fast enough
> > for all my games.
>
> I've not had a single complaint yet. Everything runs smoothly. In fact,
I
> used to run on a Pentium 60 with a Pheonix motherboard and I had a number
of
> problems with device conflicts that just didn't make sense (but that was a
> motherboard error, not a processor error). So far, given the performance
> numbers I've seen comparing Intel chips to Cyrix chips, it seems Cyrix is
the
> better choice. Even PC magazine agrees on that note, in an article
> apropriately entitled "Cyrix may be the David to the Intel Goliath".
> It's about bloody time someone broke Intel's monopoly on processors.
>
> My other praise for Cyrix is their web page. Go take a look at it
> sometime, it's the most informative and to-the-point page I've seen in a
long
> while. Intel has too many fanciful graphics that mask over it's bad
> organization. It'd take weeks of searching to find what you're looking
for on
> Intel's page.
>
I agree also. Whoever wrote the first message shown in this reply has no
idea what he's talking about. I also own a Cyrix and it works great and NOT
ONE incompatability problem. Its probably again one of the intel employees
trying to spread their stupid lies because their afraid of Cyrix.
For anyone considering a Cyrix, it works great, no incompatability problems
whatsoever, as long as the motherboard has been tested/approved for use with
a Cyrix. Don't believe this bull you read on here... if that were actually
true, Cyrix would have been bankrupt long ago.
I just read an article recently in PCWorld I believe, that the latest Cyrix
150+ is at least 5% faster than the latest Intel Pentium 200.
domino
goddamn...the cyrix chip is just like a fucking pentium/pentium pro
high brid....the new p6 chips from intel are going to be cyix
knokoffs...and for the mhz difference...you take a lemonade stand(intel)
and see how much lemonade you sell.and faster..when you competitor is as
small as a jug of lemonade (cyrix) in the fridge.the 6x86 chips need to
be put on a 0.35 micron scale...then you get mhz up to about 235 mhz..
its all just who has the factories...and right now intel has more
fabrication facillities than amd and cyrix combined...but that doesnt
mean they are better..the competitors are in fact better...intel is
standard ...thats all
Jason Dean Malone
really!!.....this....is all.....so nice....to.....know........
C. Aardvark
Thender (n...@thank.you) wrote:
: On another note each piece of our hardware uses part of the cpu.
: The new cd-rom drives 8x and 10x use 60 to 80% of the cpu to run. if
: companies were to set up dedicated processors for components the up in
: speed would be great. without the dedicated draw on the central
: processor. the message scrutinized above was mine.
The cpu usage characteristics of cd-rom drives is largely a function of
poorly written drivers that sit on the cpu doing NOP's (no operation, for the
uninitiated) while they wait for a read to be processed. Additionally,
those cd-rom drives with miniscule cache sizes are not helping matters.
As my old pappy used t' say : "Ya gets what ya pays for!" :)
-James
Ed Wensell III aka THE StormRaiser
Psst.. If you read my original message, you would find that the Z80
(circa Altair and TRS-80) thing was a joke.. And the 8088 (IBM PC/XT)
comment from the other person was along the same lines..
Don't schools teach computer history anymore?
Dosen't anyone else's news reader offer a way of cleaning up crossposting
when replying??
William Wong
Desiree' wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 07:17:25 GMT, rd...@pcm.nl (RTM van Dijk) wrote:
>
> >On 14 Aug 1996 17:09:36 GMT, "Major Error" <cst...@phoenix.kent.edu>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>As is the fate of all clones, there are many known incompatibilities
> >>between Cyrix, AMD, and iNTEL CPUs. Unfortunately, I can't find the
> >>article, but there were some common apps that just would not run on any
> >>processor other than an iNTEL. I believe it had to do with the Cyrix and
> >>AMD CPU command set and certain pathways that make up the processor that
> >>are implemented differently.
> >> As long as there are clones of any major harware manufacturer (remember
> >>IBM?) there will always be incompatibilities.
> >>
> >
> >speed was impressive (Comparing to a P133) But 3d Studio release 4 did
> >very strange things. Consulting Autodesk and the only thing they sayed
> >was "Sorry only Intel"
> >
> >Rene
>
> page and review the tested software... I have been selling Pentiums
> and Cyrix chips for about 6 months now with no complaints from any of
> my customers....I have a Cyrix P-166+ running at home with no problems
> at all. To date, I have not read any article (with the exception from
> Intel) that indicates in any way that Cyrix has any drawbacks....
> Also, you might want to review the motherboard and BIOs requirements
> that Cyrix has set. Their instruction set is more defined then
> Intel's.. The new BIOS can now support these instructions. Hope this
> helps...Dave
I have a Cyrix 166+ also,it works well under MSDOS,but in
Win95......sometimes it hangs and some general protection fault
occur,need to shut down,what's wrong????r these the incompatible of Cyrix
under Win95 or the unstability of Win95????
--
William Wong
****A mad guy who loves karaoke and video games very much.......
Email address : sa...@glink.net.hk
dpy...@easthigh.demon.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:22:24 -0800, William Wong <sa...@glink.net.hk>
wrote:
I too am a lucky Cyrix owner (p150+). Thus far the chip has performed
impeccably. The only incompatibility I have found is with some
diagnostics programs (although a friend has reported similar problems
with his Pentium and the same programs. Wincheckit4 was one noted
application which refused to run although I have been told that
Touchstone have released a fix (does anybody know anything about
this?). Apart from this very minor problem I have found no trouble at
all with anything else and certainly no more than I had when I owned a
Pentium 100. Lastly, I tried out a copy of Windows Detroit (long since
deleted) and it identified the Cyrix chip as a
Cyrix instead
Obviously Microsoft recognises the Cyrix processor and is aware of
possible command set differences
Guy (A happy Cyrix owner)
Jeff
Desiree' <He...@someplace.cum> wrote in article
<321640bd...@news.earthlink.net>...
Both myself and a friend have tried a Cyrix p150 in our
systems and in both instances Win95 would either not
run at all, or would consistently corrupt the registry. After
replacing our old pentiums, the problem disappeared, never to
return. Both of us were using the latest AMI bios of the time,
so unless we both got bad chips that did the same thing (we tried
them two months apart) Cyrix is NOT 100% compatible. I will
never buy non-Intel again (I'm sure I will, just making a point ;) )
Laine Jones
Jeff <mei...@readynetgo.com> wrote in article
<01bb8e4a$93d737e0$391a11c7@jeff-s-pc>...
>
>
> Desiree' <He...@someplace.cum> wrote in article
> <321640bd...@news.earthlink.net>...
> > On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 07:17:25 GMT, rd...@pcm.nl (RTM van Dijk) wrote:
> >
> > >On 14 Aug 1996 17:09:36 GMT, "Major Error" <cst...@phoenix.kent.edu>
> > >wrote:
> > >
<THINGS DELETED>
> > Before buying a Cyrix, you might want to look at the Cyrix.com web
> > page and review the tested software... I have been selling Pentiums
> > and Cyrix chips for about 6 months now with no complaints from any of
> > my customers....I have a Cyrix P-166+ running at home with no problems
> > at all. To date, I have not read any article (with the exception from
> > Intel) that indicates in any way that Cyrix has any drawbacks....
> > Also, you might want to review the motherboard and BIOs requirements
> > that Cyrix has set. Their instruction set is more defined then
> > Intel's.. The new BIOS can now support these instructions. Hope this
> > helps...Dave
> >
> Both myself and a friend have tried a Cyrix p150 in our
> systems and in both instances Win95 would either not
> run at all, or would consistently corrupt the registry. After
> replacing our old pentiums, the problem disappeared, never to
> return. Both of us were using the latest AMI bios of the time,
> so unless we both got bad chips that did the same thing (we tried
> them two months apart) Cyrix is NOT 100% compatible. I will
> never buy non-Intel again (I'm sure I will, just making a point ;) )
>
Just my 2 bits.. I'm a technician for a computer store with 40 stores.. I
have about 6 computers 2 with 6x86 p150+ and 1 p166+ & p90. IBM makes ALL
of Cyrix's chips for them. I've run ALL software at the my store on the
Cyrix/IBM 6x86 chips and they all run fine. (I also have a true p166) and
compared to the other machines (6x86) it's slow as a dog! I've played the
most recent games, Wp,Word, you name it.. operating system Novell,MS-DOS,
PC-dos,OS/2warp, win 95, NT 4.0 beta.. and not had a problem with anything
yet... (oh and ALL know Emulators so far) they work FINE!) get your-self a
TECH that knows what he's doing during your system build get good parts not
CHEAP things and you will fine that the 6x86 chips are a fine product! and
perform to what they are designed to do! (RUNNING DAMM FAST!)
I like Intel Chips too, They are what ALL things are designed to run on
FIRST! But don't knock other companies just because they arn't as
"NAME-BRAND" as the others..
Thender
back after a couple months of selling their product (if it's a good
seller) When you pay 100 bucks for an 8X why not get a dedicated
processor for example 486 dx 33 cpu's cost 30 bucks but that would not
be compatible with the cd-rom everything's cheap how much do you think
Intel gets from each cpu purchase? esp. when their made from a little
bit of gold and some sand!
later
Thender
Jeff wrote:
>
> Desiree' <He...@someplace.cum> wrote in article
> <321640bd...@news.earthlink.net>...
> > On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 07:17:25 GMT, rd...@pcm.nl (RTM van Dijk) wrote:
> >
> > >On 14 Aug 1996 17:09:36 GMT, "Major Error" <cst...@phoenix.kent.edu>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>between Cyrix, AMD, and iNTEL CPUs. Unfortunately, I can't find the
> > >>article, but there were some common apps that just would not run on any
> > >>processor other than an iNTEL. I believe it had to do with the Cyrix
> and
> > >>AMD CPU command set and certain pathways that make up the processor
> that
> > >>are implemented differently.
> > >> As long as there are clones of any major harware manufacturer
> (remember
> > >>IBM?) there will always be incompatibilities.
> > >>
> > >
> > >What about the incompatibility of Cyrix??? I've tried a 166 Cyrix. The
> > >speed was impressive (Comparing to a P133) But 3d Studio release 4 did
> > >very strange things. Consulting Autodesk and the only thing they sayed
> > >was "Sorry only Intel"
> > >
> > >Rene
> >
> > page and review the tested software... I have been selling Pentiums
> > and Cyrix chips for about 6 months now with no complaints from any of
> > my customers....I have a Cyrix P-166+ running at home with no problems
> > at all. To date, I have not read any article (with the exception from
> > Intel) that indicates in any way that Cyrix has any drawbacks....
> > Also, you might want to review the motherboard and BIOs requirements
> > that Cyrix has set. Their instruction set is more defined then
> > Intel's.. The new BIOS can now support these instructions. Hope this
> > helps...Dave
> >
> Both myself and a friend have tried a Cyrix p150 in our
> systems and in both instances Win95 would either not
> run at all, or would consistently corrupt the registry. After
> replacing our old pentiums, the problem disappeared, never to
> return. Both of us were using the latest AMI bios of the time,
> so unless we both got bad chips that did the same thing (we tried
> them two months apart) Cyrix is NOT 100% compatible. I will
> never buy non-Intel again (I'm sure I will, just making a point ;) )
intel chips! it's a monopoly on the product that works the best
Miroslav Karas
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 17:51:49 GMT, pure...@crl.com (Golden Eagle)
wrote:
>On 20 Aug 1996 05:08:11 GMT, "Laine Jones" <ljo...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Jeff <mei...@readynetgo.com> wrote in article
>><01bb8e4a$93d737e0$391a11c7@jeff-s-pc>...
>>>
>>>
>>> Desiree' <He...@someplace.cum> wrote in article
>>> <321640bd...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>> > On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 07:17:25 GMT, rd...@pcm.nl (RTM van Dijk) wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >On 14 Aug 1996 17:09:36 GMT, "Major Error" <cst...@phoenix.kent.edu>
>>> > >wrote:
>>> > >
>><THINGS DELETED>
>>
>>> > Before buying a Cyrix, you might want to look at the Cyrix.com web
>>> > page and review the tested software... I have been selling Pentiums
>>> > and Cyrix chips for about 6 months now with no complaints from any of
>>> > my customers....I have a Cyrix P-166+ running at home with no problems
>>> > at all. To date, I have not read any article (with the exception from
>>> > Intel) that indicates in any way that Cyrix has any drawbacks....
>>> > Also, you might want to review the motherboard and BIOs requirements
>>> > that Cyrix has set. Their instruction set is more defined then
>>> > Intel's.. The new BIOS can now support these instructions. Hope this
>>> > helps...Dave
>>> >
>>> Both myself and a friend have tried a Cyrix p150 in our
>>> systems and in both instances Win95 would either not
>>> run at all, or would consistently corrupt the registry. After
>>> replacing our old pentiums, the problem disappeared, never to
>>> return. Both of us were using the latest AMI bios of the time,
>>> so unless we both got bad chips that did the same thing (we tried
>>> them two months apart) Cyrix is NOT 100% compatible. I will
>>> never buy non-Intel again (I'm sure I will, just making a point ;) )
>>>
>>Just my 2 bits.. I'm a technician for a computer store with 40 stores.. I
>>have about 6 computers 2 with 6x86 p150+ and 1 p166+ & p90. IBM makes ALL
>>of Cyrix's chips for them. I've run ALL software at the my store on the
>>Cyrix/IBM 6x86 chips and they all run fine. (I also have a true p166) and
>>compared to the other machines (6x86) it's slow as a dog! I've played the
>>most recent games, Wp,Word, you name it.. operating system Novell,MS-DOS,
>>PC-dos,OS/2warp, win 95, NT 4.0 beta.. and not had a problem with anything
>>yet... (oh and ALL know Emulators so far) they work FINE!) get your-self a
>>TECH that knows what he's doing during your system build get good parts not
>>CHEAP things and you will fine that the 6x86 chips are a fine product! and
>>perform to what they are designed to do! (RUNNING DAMM FAST!)
>>I like Intel Chips too, They are what ALL things are designed to run on
>>FIRST! But don't knock other companies just because they arn't as
>>"NAME-BRAND" as the others..
>>
>
>
>I am the proud owner of a 6x86 166mhz Cyrix and have had 0
>problems..works incredibly fast and runs EVERY piece of software I
>have including many new DOS games.
>
>I think INTEL is paying for some bad PR so they don't get snuffed.
>CNET reported problems with the Cyrix chip and said Cyrix acknowledged
>it runs 25% slower on Windows NT, yet I can't get anyone from Cyrix to
>admit they released any information. Cyrix is looking into reports
>and if false I am sure CNET is going to be headed for a big lawsuit.
>
>Anyhow...I don't listen to all the hype around INTEL and have found
>other compatible chips worked as well without any problems.
>
>The problems I have seen and heard are around off brand motherboards
>and motherboards which are not INTEL boards as this chip was designed
>to plug into the INTEL board and not other brand names. I have an
>INTEL board running the Triton II chipset, Flash AMI bios and my
>system runs so fast it is a dream. My Netscape which used to take
>about 20 seconds to load on my old 486 80mhz now starts up in under 2
>seconds.
>
>My Cyrix is loaded with a 2.5 gig hd, WD caviar, 64mb of EDO ram,
>Mag17F monitor, 8x cdrom, 3.2 gb tape backup, AWE32 soundblaster card
>and it all runs flawlessly.
>
>People who listen to whatever they hear will continue to by INTEL but
>I am glad I made the switch and ignore all the complainers out there.
>One thing for sure on the net...people's opinions are like
>assholes...everyone's got one...some bigger than others.
>
>Jay
I am also proud owner of Cyrix 150+ but I am also disappointed with
the performance that I got on recently installed Windows NT 4.0
workstation. You speak about report from CNET and I have my own
experience.
My system have:
FIC mainboard (PA2002) with Apollo chipset (570M)
256 burst L2
32 MB EDO
Cyrix 6x86 150+ 120MHz (remember the clock speed)
1GB Caviar
I run Wintun 95 and I got resold that similar to that from CNET. On
windows NT4.0 the integer and FFP (which was already low) went down
approximately 25% comparing to WIN95.
I run also winbanch 96 resold was similar. Actually I found something
more when I run winbanch. The reports about the type of processor and
type hardware was completely different:
In win 95 it correctly report Cyrix M1 with revision 5.
In windows Nt i got 486 - passable cyrix
The clock reported in win 95 - 120 MHz
In NT 109 MHz.
Bus type in win 95 - pci
In NT isa
Way are this discrepancy i really do not know.
I BYTE magazine (www.byte.com) they said that when they run bunchmark
on the beta version of NT 40 the Cyrix do not have any problem with
speed. On this last version of nt40 they got 25% reduction of
processing power.
So now i have little mix filling about the 8x86
I waiting for the fix from the Microsoft.
Ka
Markus Haas
> > the P5 chip. your comparing apples and oranges. The pc world sucks
> >because everything is optimized for complex instruction set (cisc) while
> >Graphics run Risc and look how fast they are. Risc rocks it just came out
> >later than cisc and they kept with the crappy chip architecture we're all
> >used to.
>
least get the facts straight. Comparing SGIs with PPros is like comparing
apples and oranges. A PPro 200 is roughly comparable to an R4400-250 in some
integer benchmarks. SGIs kill when it comes to graphics, not because of the
processor.
RISC is also not the reason. HP PA series chips are the best out there when it
comes to floating point ops. The reason? An instruction set that rivals the
size of a CISC chip's (trust me- ive done assembly on them)
Let us not be to quick to place blame.
Markus
Miroslav Karas
On 18 Aug 1996 04:14:58 GMT, ewen...@pstcc6.pstcc.cc.tn.us (Ed
Wensell III aka THE StormRaiser) wrote:
>In article <32151f5d...@news.erols.com>, ekl...@erols.com (Hades) writes:
>>On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:55:45 -0700, Chuck Koleczek <chu...@pbi.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> By the time you are all done, the Z80 will end up being
>>>> the better chip!! :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Boy, are you a fool! The 8088 kicks the Z80's ASS!
>>>:)
>>
>>People.............. $3000 for a DEC alpha with
>>NT4.0.......................HELLO!!!!!
>
>Psst.. If you read my original message, you would find that the Z80
>(circa Altair and TRS-80) thing was a joke.. And the 8088 (IBM PC/XT)
>comment from the other person was along the same lines..
>
>Don't schools teach computer history anymore?
The shools do not teach anything anymore.
Richard Benjamin
ic.net> <4utcit$i...@blackice.winternet.com> <4utkot$b...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz> <32136f08...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com> <32167C...@atlantic.net>
Organization: FredNet - Frederick, Md.
Distribution:
domino (dom...@atlantic.net) wrote:
: goddamn...the cyrix chip is just like a fucking pentium/pentium pro
: high brid....the new p6 chips from intel are going to be cyix
: knokoffs...and for the mhz difference...you take a lemonade stand(intel)
Really? And here I am thinking that Intel is headed for RISC based
chips.. Silly me for thinking CISC is so horrible. :-) In fact that is
why Cyrix chips are faster. They're pure CISC chips. They don't have to
translate CISC into RISC like Intels do (or soon will do) If the P7 will
be fully RISC then it will destroy Cyrix's future if they keep their pace
up.
Here's a happy thought. Myabe soon Cyrix will have to translate RISC into
CISC. That won't happen for a while though.
: and see how much lemonade you sell.and faster..when you competitor is as
: small as a jug of lemonade (cyrix) in the fridge.the 6x86 chips need to
: be put on a 0.35 micron scale...then you get mhz up to about 235 mhz..
: its all just who has the factories...and right now intel has more
: fabrication facillities than amd and cyrix combined...but that doesnt
: mean they are better..the competitors are in fact better...intel is
: standard ...thats all
And that Intels support multiprocessors. And that they have a stronger
FPU. And that they are still the leader in plain technology. (a full
generation ahead of Cyrix plus MMX will be out soon and the Advanced
Graphics Port after that) Cyrix claims they are the best Win95 processors
out there. That's fine for Win95 users. I'm a Linux and soon to be NT
user. (Soon my Dual processor motherboard will have it's fill when the
money comes in) I relieve myself on the Cyrix chip.
Did I mention that Intels are the only ones with notebook and laptops?
Place a Cyrix into a laptop and you fry the components inside and your
lap. (way too much heat)
Reed J
In article <3218DB...@glink.net.hk>, sa...@glink.net.hk says...
>> >What about the incompatibility of Cyrix??? I've tried a 166 Cyrix. The
>> >speed was impressive (Comparing to a P133) But 3d Studio release 4 did
>> >very strange things. Consulting Autodesk and the only thing they sayed
>> >was "Sorry only Intel"
Thats a BUG in AutoDesk. For them to purposly not make it compatible is not
legal. for them to be sloppy in their coding... that is.
> I have a Cyrix 166+ also,it works well under MSDOS,but in
>Win95......sometimes it hangs and some general protection fault
>occur,need to shut down,what's wrong????r these the incompatible of Cyrix
>under Win95 or the unstability of Win95????
You may have a problem with your system board or the guy who put your system
together. I do computer work and have built and sold hundreds of Cyrix CPUs.
I perfer Cyrix over Intel. faster and cheaper!
And Quake does fly with the Cyrix P166! Anyway... SOME motherboards do not
support the CyrixCPU correctly and many CLONE makers build machines with the
cheapest components... like your motherboard. hence, I quit the business to do
my own contract work ;) I hate cheap parts.. they screw up more.
The Intel tritonVX (with DIMM) support will handle the Cyrix CPU's beautifully.
Make sure it has 4 ISA slots! No, there are not incompatiblity between Cyrix and
operating systems. Cyrix is Windoes3.1, Win95 and WinNT4.0 Certified. Only
sloppy coding would prevent something from working.
Check your manual to make sure it supports the Cyrix CPU... Because YES, you
can insert a Cyrix CPU into a motherboard that doesn't support it and it'll run. But
not correctly. Like the Cx150 is jumpered like a Pentium 120, etc etc.
Oh... you can OVERCLOCK some CPU/MB combos. I run my 150 at 166Mhz
(okay 133Mhz) and it flies faster than the i160! I love it!! No problems here. With
my small machine running 32mb, I ran up 45 apps (MS OFFICE 5 times, multi
DOS and Doom2) before killing the system. 99% CPU usage, 95% Memory
usage. Oops! :) Its not the chip Bud.
See ya! Reed
New anime site for 18+ sakurasoft.com
Also, tell your friends, if you buy SIMMS, make sure they match your contact
leads... avoid gold leads with tin-plated simm sockets! get 60ns! get EDO.
Otherwise, buy SD-RAM (DIMMs) for your motherboard!
Gregory Scratchley
Sean Aschen
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 05:29:17 GMT, mi...@pipeline.com (Miroslav Karas)
>>>>> the better chip!! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Boy, are you a fool! The 8088 kicks the Z80's ASS!
>>>>:)
>>>
>>>People.............. $3000 for a DEC alpha with
>>>NT4.0.......................HELLO!!!!!
>>
>>Psst.. If you read my original message, you would find that the Z80
>>(circa Altair and TRS-80) thing was a joke.. And the 8088 (IBM PC/XT)
>>comment from the other person was along the same lines..
passive backplane... With my custom multi-processor OS, I can run
Quake at 500 frames per second.
Only, it's in 16 colors...
Duh.
>>
>>Don't schools teach computer history anymore?
>The shools do not teach anything anymore.
Not to you, anyway...
Alec Lazarescu
On 17 Aug 1996 01:47:17 GMT, "Tim Coolong" <tc...@gte.net> wrote:
>Digital Quartz <qua...@ftn.net> wrote in article <320F54...@ftn.net>...
>> Trestles wrote:
>> > I'd have to agree with Bill. I had a Cyrix P-150+ for about a week,
>> > but I couldn't clear an error on my motherboard that read "static
>> > device resource conflict" It was with one of the cards I had, but
>> > couldn't narrow it down because the board would just burn up after
>> > this error came up. The store burnt up four boards before they just
>> > gave me a refund. I now have a Pentium 133, and although noticebly
>> > slower in Windows95 than my friend's Cyrix P-150+, it's fast enough
>> > for all my games.
>I agree also. Whoever wrote the first message shown in this reply has no
>idea what he's talking about. I also own a Cyrix and it works great and NOT
>ONE incompatability problem. Its probably again one of the intel employees
>trying to spread their stupid lies because their afraid of Cyrix.
>
>For anyone considering a Cyrix, it works great, no incompatability problems
>whatsoever, as long as the motherboard has been tested/approved for use with
>a Cyrix. Don't believe this bull you read on here... if that were actually
>true, Cyrix would have been bankrupt long ago.
I'd just like to add that I have the "static device resource conflict"
w/ my Intel P133 so it's not a Cyrix thing. Probably some stupid PNP
problem at the root of it. I actually miss jumpers... They were a
pain to set, but at least you knew exactly what was in use and what
IRQ and address it had.
domino
preach it brother tech
domino
they are true cisc yes...i meant that the features found in the p an pp
are in the c...man if you use linux get a pentium or amd chip...who
cares any way...the 686 wil soon have all the shanks worked out in al
os's so it will just be fast...not win95 fast...and if you get down to
it...ibm makes the chips ...if cyrix gets enough revenue...they will be
able to buy their own fabrication plant...by the way...when ibm makes
its 686...it will take the cyrix foundation to a new level...in fact
cyrix should just sell itself to ibm..that would be fantastic...the 686
and warp side by side///hahahah
Ed Hurtley
<a heck of a lot deleted>
> I too am a lucky Cyrix owner (p150+). Thus far the chip has performed
> impeccably. The only incompatibility I have found is with some
> diagnostics programs (although a friend has reported similar problems
> with his Pentium and the same programs. Wincheckit4 was one noted
> application which refused to run although I have been told that
> Touchstone have released a fix (does anybody know anything about
> this?). Apart from this very minor problem I have found no trouble at
> all with anything else and certainly no more than I had when I owned a
> Pentium 100. Lastly, I tried out a copy of Windows Detroit (long since
> deleted) and it identified the Cyrix chip as a
> Cyrix instead
> Obviously Microsoft recognises the Cyrix processor and is aware of
> possible command set differences
No, it just asks the processor to identify itself, and the processor replys
"CyrixInstead".
Microsoft's MSInfo, along with most other similar software, identifies it
as a 486.
Mr.P
On Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:48:45 GMT, asc...@ix.netcom.com (Sean Aschen)
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 05:29:17 GMT, mi...@pipeline.com (Miroslav Karas)
>>>>>> By the time you are all done, the Z80 will end up being
>>>>>> the better chip!! :)
>>>>>Boy, are you a fool! The 8088 kicks the Z80's ASS!
>>>>>:)
>>>>People.............. $3000 for a DEC alpha with
>>>>NT4.0.......................HELLO!!!!!
>>>Psst.. If you read my original message, you would find that the Z80
>>>(circa Altair and TRS-80) thing was a joke.. And the 8088 (IBM PC/XT)
>>>comment from the other person was along the same lines..
>But I'm not joking.. I've got 50 Apple II+ computers networked to a
>passive backplane... With my custom multi-processor OS, I can run
>Quake at 500 frames per second.
>Only, it's in 16 colors...
>Duh.
Hahahah, well, Quake isn't multithreaded so you'll have a hell of a
time arranging the different snippets of code to run on all those
processors. Besides the emulators.. :)
dpy...@easthigh.demon.co.uk
Ah so. i didn't realise this. Many thanks for the info. I don't claim
to be an expert - just a satisfied Cyrix owner. Win 95 didn't seem
respond similarly; any ideas why (older version perhaps ?)?
Josh Linder
Before I begin the reply, please remember I work for Intel...
The _SOLE_ reason why Cyrix will never be a threat to Intel is volume.
Why isn't mom-and-pops' burger joint a threat to McDonald's? Volume.
Intel sells tons of chips, and Cyrix is solely out there to make
people aware that Intel isn't infallable, whether with performance or
price. HOWEVER, it's been estimated that Cyrix is selling chips for
LESS THAN A HALF of what they make them for, meaning that they'll
eventually have to raise the price (if people start buying a lot of
them) or will just fold and die if they can't afford to keep losing
money. Just a matter of straight economics.
If they don't have a directly compatible chip with MMX by mid-1997,
kiss them goodbye. AMD is the only threat that Intel sees as a
competitor in the near or far future, even though Intel will blow
everyone away with the Merced chip...
i...@me.com
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 06:33:23 GMT, star...@cyberstreet.com (E. Scott
Heinis) wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 03:26:19 GMT, an411???@anon.penet.fi (Trestles)
>wrote:
>
>>big...@microsoft.com (Bill Gates) wrote:
>>>Well, by the time you can afford one, it's possible no one will be
>>>selling them. As an employee of a chip reseller, I have seen many of
>>>the loca computer stores (including mine) refuse to sell them because
>>>such a high percentage of the ones sold were returned due to
>>>incompatibility (both hardware and software), substandard performance
>>>(like any rendering or graphic arts programs that are heavily
>>>dependant on FPUs, which includes most everything short of word
>>>processing), and, of course, the infamous heat problem. In other
>>>words, there is a very good reason the chip is so much less than a
>>>Pentium - you get what you pay for. If you're still interested in
>>>getting one, then I hope that you will be among the small pool of
>>>satisfied customers (I know of exactly ONE), but I do STRONGLY
>>>reccommend against it. You will be buying into a processor that will
>>>have a short life expectancy (both individually, and in the market
>>>place), is highly unlikely to be compatible with much of the next
>>>generation software (inluding NT from what I hear), and may cause you
>>>more than what tou saved in headaches.
>>I'd have to agree with Bill. I had a Cyrix P-150+ for about a week,
>>but I couldn't clear an error on my motherboard that read "static
>>device resource conflict" It was with one of the cards I had, but
>>couldn't narrow it down because the board would just burn up after
>>this error came up. The store burnt up four boards before they just
>>gave me a refund. I now have a Pentium 133, and although noticebly
>>slower in Windows95 than my friend's Cyrix P-150+, it's fast enough
>>for all my games.
>>
>
>I don't know what the hell these morons are talking about, but I've
>had NOTHING but luck with the Cyrix 6x86 CPUs. I, personally, have a
(key word here is ^^^ )
>P166+ in my machine and have had no problems AT ALL. Our computer
>store started carrying the 6x86 4 months ago, and it is currently
>out-selling the Pentium at a 6 to 1 ratio. As long as you use one of
>the motherboards that Cyrix has certified for the CPU, you should have
>no problems.
>
>As far as the comment about its unsuitability for graphic arts
>applications, I use my computer daily with AutoCAD 12, Corel DRAW! 3
>and several other highly FPU dependant applications and am extremely
>happy with its performance.
>
>To answer the question about 'static resource conflict', that has to
>do with the PCI allocation of IRQ's in the CMOS PCI setup, and is
>easily fixed by a competant technician. I have personally run into
>this error, and have fixed it with no problem. The only reason a
>motherboard or CPUI might 'burn up', would be due to improper cpu
>voltage selection. Cyrix CPU's MUST be set up for Standard or VR Spec
>(3.4v). If you set it up for VRE (3.5v), you will either burn out the
>CPU, or the voltage regulators on the motherboard.
>
>Also mentioned was software incompatibility. I run System Commander
>on the shop computer, along with Win 95, NT 3.51, and DOS/Win 3.11 and
>haven't had any problems so far.....
>
>I guess my summary of this is make sure you are buying from a
>QUALIFIED retailer that sells the CPU with the right MB (Cyrix
>approved) and fan (Thermalloy -- Cyrix ships it with the chip), sets
>up the motherboard properly and is an AUTHORIZED Cyrix retailer.
>There is ALWAYS the possibility that you got ahold of a black market
>CPU that has been re-screened to say it was a higher speed.
>
> If you have any questions at all about the Cyrix 6x86 and 5x86 CPUs,
>call 1-800-GO-CYRIX.
bite me
i...@me.com wrote:
i agree.......i have a cyrix 5x86 120 and there isnt a problem in the
world.......its fully compatable with everything ive tried in windows
and dos and in every speed test ive ever ran it scores higher than my
friends p90!
Skookum
On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 04:43:22 GMT, a...@west.net wrote:
>
>>the Cyrix 6x86 P166+ does not support 3D studio and autocad v.13 with a
>>plotter ; you should consider that.
>
>Thats not true. I'm running both on my Cyrix 166 right now. All you
>need is a file called pipeloop.exe from Cyrix that will slow down part
>of the processor temporarily for 3ds 4 to load, because it is too fast
>and 3ds4 cant register it or something.
>
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. My buddy has been friggin' around all week
with his new Cyrix 166. Back to back conflicts on original
software products, Intel board, Diamond Stealth video, USR modem
etc... He is a system's anylist, so it is not just a user stupidity
thing. He's going to fork out for the authentic Intel chip this week.
He is not going to sell the Cyrix, he's going to have a CPU demolition
ceremony (size 11 Nike Vs Cyrix P166). BUY THE REAL CHIP OR SUFFER
THE INEVITABLE!
Rob Jacobs
No-one in a.b.e.cbm is interrested - stop crossmailing....
--
- Rob Jacobs mailto:rbja...@euronet.nl
Visit my HomePage at http://www.euronet.nl/users/rbjacobs/index.htm
John J. Miller
i...@me.com wrote in article <3220d153...@news.airmail.net>...
> On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 06:33:23 GMT, star...@cyberstreet.com (E. Scott
> Heinis) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 03:26:19 GMT, an411???@anon.penet.fi (Trestles)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>big...@microsoft.com (Bill Gates) wrote:
><SNIP>
> >
> >I don't know what the hell these morons are talking about, but I've
> >had NOTHING but luck with the Cyrix 6x86 CPUs. I, personally, have a
> (key word here is ^^^ )
> >P166+ in my machine and have had no problems AT ALL. Our computer
> >store started carrying the 6x86 4 months ago, and it is currently
> >out-selling the Pentium at a 6 to 1 ratio. As long as you use one of
> >the motherboards that Cyrix has certified for the CPU, you should have
> >no problems.
> >
> >As far as the comment about its unsuitability for graphic arts
> >applications, I use my computer daily with AutoCAD 12, Corel DRAW! 3
> >and several other highly FPU dependant applications and am extremely
> >happy with its performance.
All in all rather OLD programs aren't they??? I have seen the problem he
speaks of and it was happening BIG time with AUTOCAD r13. Come on guy, if
your gonna post use up to date stuff. I mean REALLY "Corel 3"???? Get with
the picture, Corel 6.
David Neely
On Sun, 25 Aug 1996 22:19:45 GMT, i...@me.com wrote:
:On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 06:33:23 GMT, star...@cyberstreet.com (E. Scott
:Heinis) wrote:
:
:>On Mon, 12 Aug 1996 03:26:19 GMT, an411???@anon.penet.fi (Trestles)
:>wrote:
:>
:>>big...@microsoft.com (Bill Gates) wrote:
:>>>Well, by the time you can afford one, it's possible no one will be
:>>>selling them. As an employee of a chip reseller, I have seen many of
:>>>the loca computer stores (including mine) refuse to sell them because
:>>>such a high percentage of the ones sold were returned due to
:>>>incompatibility (both hardware and software), substandard performance
:>>>(like any rendering or graphic arts programs that are heavily
:>>>dependant on FPUs, which includes most everything short of word
:>>>processing), and, of course, the infamous heat problem. In other
:>>>words, there is a very good reason the chip is so much less than a
:>>>Pentium - you get what you pay for. If you're still interested in
:>>>getting one, then I hope that you will be among the small pool of
:>>>satisfied customers (I know of exactly ONE), but I do STRONGLY
:>>>reccommend against it. You will be buying into a processor that will
:>>>have a short life expectancy (both individually, and in the market
:>>>place), is highly unlikely to be compatible with much of the next
:>>>generation software (inluding NT from what I hear), and may cause you
:>>>more than what tou saved in headaches.
:>>I'd have to agree with Bill. I had a Cyrix P-150+ for about a week,
:>>but I couldn't clear an error on my motherboard that read "static
:>>device resource conflict" It was with one of the cards I had, but
:>>couldn't narrow it down because the board would just burn up after
:>>this error came up. The store burnt up four boards before they just
:>>gave me a refund. I now have a Pentium 133, and although noticebly
:>>slower in Windows95 than my friend's Cyrix P-150+, it's fast enough
:>>for all my games.
:>>
:>
:>I don't know what the hell these morons are talking about, but I've
:>had NOTHING but luck with the Cyrix 6x86 CPUs. I, personally, have a
: (key word here is ^^^ )
:>P166+ in my machine and have had no problems AT ALL. Our computer
:>store started carrying the 6x86 4 months ago, and it is currently
:>out-selling the Pentium at a 6 to 1 ratio. As long as you use one of
:>the motherboards that Cyrix has certified for the CPU, you should have
:>no problems.
:>
:>As far as the comment about its unsuitability for graphic arts
:>applications, I use my computer daily with AutoCAD 12, Corel DRAW! 3
:>and several other highly FPU dependant applications and am extremely
:>happy with its performance.
:>
:>To answer the question about 'static resource conflict', that has to
:>do with the PCI allocation of IRQ's in the CMOS PCI setup, and is
:>easily fixed by a competant technician. I have personally run into
:>this error, and have fixed it with no problem. The only reason a
:>motherboard or CPUI might 'burn up', would be due to improper cpu
:>voltage selection. Cyrix CPU's MUST be set up for Standard or VR Spec
:>(3.4v). If you set it up for VRE (3.5v), you will either burn out the
:>CPU, or the voltage regulators on the motherboard.
:>
:>Also mentioned was software incompatibility. I run System Commander
:>on the shop computer, along with Win 95, NT 3.51, and DOS/Win 3.11 and
:>haven't had any problems so far.....
:>
:>I guess my summary of this is make sure you are buying from a
:>QUALIFIED retailer that sells the CPU with the right MB (Cyrix
:>approved) and fan (Thermalloy -- Cyrix ships it with the chip), sets
:>up the motherboard properly and is an AUTHORIZED Cyrix retailer.
:>There is ALWAYS the possibility that you got ahold of a black market
:>CPU that has been re-screened to say it was a higher speed.
:>
:> If you have any questions at all about the Cyrix 6x86 and 5x86 CPUs,
:>call 1-800-GO-CYRIX.
:
Ive had my Cyrix P166+ for about two months now and Im very happy with
it. Ive run all sorts of software from Dos games to heavy Win95 apps
and have had no compatability problems whatsoever and get great speed
and performance. Plus I saved about $300-$400 on the cost of a
comparable Pentium system...I think these rumors of the Cyrix having
all these problems are either as stated above (i.e. technician
incompetance/ black market chips) or Intel trying to stave off its
first serious competition....
Dave
rhal...@concentric.net
dne...@atlcom.net (David Neely) wrote:
>Dave
I cant help but add to this: I purchased a 166+ 6x86 with
recommendation from a friend, and was amazed at its W95 performance!
I run a gaming network with a bunch of friends who all have p120s or
faster intel chips. I could not wait to test TIMEREFRESH in QUAKE! a
very NEW game. Everybody was getting from around 20 to 28 frames
depending on their system configs. Well to my astonishment I got a
mere 16 frames persecond. Which SUCKS!!!! All the other games I play
ran great with the cyrix chip except QUAKE. Why? because Quake uses
heave FPU ops. I asked other owners of the cyrix chips to benchmark
Quakes performance, they all produced the same results and instantly
wanted to sell the chip because they are gamers. Sure the Cyrix is a
great apps chip but forget about it if you like Quake or other games
which are heavy FPU intensive. I have to agree with the both of you
on this one. Also every mag, makes the Cyrix chip seem to be the gods
gift to the Computer industry. They should try it on some different
games out there instead of just all those Winstone this and that
benchmark.
Rob
Thomas Djafari
Major update on my page about my emulator :
The registration begins
<http://www.micronet.fr/~frogger>
I learned that 'quite ready' means ready; I'm sorry, as English is not
my mother tongue, I tought it would mean 'nearly ready !' So the tile
was wrong !