HELP!!! P200MMX vs. K6 vs. PII-233
Andrew Ostergren
I currently have a 486-66 w/ a 13/14 inch monitor. Sound card is no name as
is the graphic card- nothing special. I want to upgrade my entire system
without going into debt for the next several years so I want to try to keep my
cost to approx $2500 or less. I would like to get some quality components and
upgrade my monitor to a 17". I also want to try to get something that I won't
have to upgrade in a year. I use the computer for general home office, some
occasional graphic and game playing. Several months ago, I was sure I was
going to get a Pentium 200 MMX. With the release of the K6 and PII, my
decision has become muddled. I would appreciate any help/suggestions.
P200MMX- would allow a complete package of quality components ie- good video
cards, nice monitor, good size HD. An Intel CPU which will not conflict w/
3Dfx cards.
K6- fast chip, nice price but there seem to be problems with the FPU- from
what I understand, this can interfere with much of the gameplay- is it a big
problem?
PII- the cutting edge but expensive- may become overshadowed by Slot 2.
Any additions, elaborations, etc. would be deeply appreciated.
E-mail responses are welcome. Thanks
Ken
gamble. Many people had compatibility issues with the Cyrix chips that
never seem to happen with Intel CPU's.
Jester
Andrew Ostergren (boo...@spacelab.net) wrote:
: P200MMX- would allow a complete package of quality components ie- good video
: 3Dfx cards.
:
: K6- fast chip, nice price but there seem to be problems with the FPU- from
: what I understand, this can interfere with much of the gameplay- is it a big
: problem?
Well, I don't see why the K6 wouldn't allow for a complete package of
components - you can get the same vid cards, same mo0nitor, same HD, and
3dFx cards work quite nicely :)
As far as the FPU/gameplay issue goes, I wouldn't worry about it too much -
first off, coming from a 486 (I just upgraded from a P100) any speed
difference that exists will be overshadowed by the huge speed difference
that your're noticing - it will be like water drops in a big bathtub.
Secondly, I play quite a few games and they all seem to cruise right along -
I have a feeling that the problem is a few rather "loud" people on these
newsgroups pointing to frames per seconds and bitching over a few here and
a few there - kind of like the people that cling to a 1 or 2 percent advantage
in a benchmark - you just won't see in "real world" ...
Furthermore, the K6200 will blow away the P200MMX in just about everything
but games, and it is cheaper, why not go for that? :)
: PII- the cutting edge but expensive- may become overshadowed by Slot 2.
Expensive, short lived (w/ Slot 2 around the corner), buggy (FIST) ...
IMO, may as well wait for the Merced.
--
Jeff Gentry jes...@rpi.edu RPI CompSci Senior
SEX DRUGS UNIX
Kay-Yut Chen
On Thu, 29 May 1997 21:10:06 -0700, Ken <kjb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Andrew Ostergren wrote:
>>
>> I currently have a 486-66 w/ a 13/14 inch monitor. Sound card is no name as
>> is the graphic card- nothing special. I want to upgrade my entire system
>> without going into debt for the next several years so I want to try to keep my
>> cost to approx $2500 or less. I would like to get some quality components and
>> upgrade my monitor to a 17". I also want to try to get something that I won't
>> have to upgrade in a year. I use the computer for general home office, some
>> occasional graphic and game playing. Several months ago, I was sure I was
>> going to get a Pentium 200 MMX. With the release of the K6 and PII, my
>> decision has become muddled. I would appreciate any help/suggestions.
>>
>> P200MMX- would allow a complete package of quality components ie- good video
>> cards, nice monitor, good size HD. An Intel CPU which will not conflict w/
>> 3Dfx cards.
>>
>> K6- fast chip, nice price but there seem to be problems with the FPU- from
>> what I understand, this can interfere with much of the gameplay- is it a big
>> problem?
>>
>> PII- the cutting edge but expensive- may become overshadowed by Slot 2.
>>
>> Any additions, elaborations, etc. would be deeply appreciated.
>>
>> E-mail responses are welcome. Thanks
>I have a p200mmx which is more than adequate. I think the k6 would be a
>gamble. Many people had compatibility issues with the Cyrix chips that
>never seem to happen with Intel CPU's.
That is exactly the decision I have made about 2 weeks ago. Here is my
rationale:
P200MMX with a 3D card is probably fast enough for any hi-res hi-color
3D games for a year or 2. All the games that I have seen can at least
run ok on p200MMX without 3D acceleration and usually flies with it.
P2 is too expensive and you will never be sure about K6.
I would also expect future games to use the MMX instructions which
will greatly enhance performance of 3D games. So the chance that you
need a new system soon is not great.
BTW, all other types of games (strategy, RPG ...) would probably not
even be able to use a fraction of a 200MMX computing power.
On my machine (P200MMX, 32M), I can play VQuake and download (with
netscape or an FTP client) at the same time without any noticeable
degrade in performance.
=====================================================================
| A Traveler between dimensions | |
+ ------------------------------+ |
| |
| In the Kingdom of Drakkar, I am known as <Narius the Mentalist> |
| To the denizens of Britainnia, my name is <Seldon the Avatar> |
| The Terran Confederation pilots call me <One the Cat Slayer> |
| |
| Seldon Dragon |
| #UDIC# |
| |
| <<Kay-Yut Chen>> |
| |
=====================================================================
Jester
Ken (kjb...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: I have a p200mmx which is more than adequate. I think the k6 would be a
: gamble. Many people had compatibility issues with the Cyrix chips that
: never seem to happen with Intel CPU's.
Remember, AMD != Cyrix ... AMD has been making solid chips for years and
years and years. I've been running my K6 pretty intensively and haven't
had a single problem to date. not to mention that with the exception of
Quake, i'm running things faster and for less $$$ then your P200MMX.
Laserboy
IMHO I think the best option, value wise, is a P200MMX.
NOW BEFORE NE 1 SAYS NE THING, LISTEN UP WHY...
A Pentium II, by the looks of it, is only as fast as a Pentium Pro of
similar clock speed, it's also phenomenally expensive.
A K6, while cheap has a sucky FPU.
Buy a P200MMX with a decent motherboard (such as the Asus T2P4) and
overclock it to 250MHZ for the ultimate solution (overclock your
motherboard to 83MHZ).
NOW THAT'S THE ULTIMATE.
Ok, Ok, u anti-overclockers... have your say...
Laserboy
Matt
I'm not so sure about that. The P166MMX at ~$275 seems to offer a much
better value than the P200MMX at ~$450. Especialy with only a <%10
increase in performace(May be lower). With the savings, go get yourself
a 3DFX. Just my $.02. Oh yea, there's no need to yell :)
--
Matt
To respond by e-mail, use address below
[E-mail: msp...@mindspring.com]
Lisa Richardson
In <338E53...@hotmail.com> Ken <kjb...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Andrew Ostergren wrote:
>>
>> P200MMX- would allow a complete package of quality components ie- good video
>> cards, nice monitor, good size HD. An Intel CPU which will not conflict w/
>> 3Dfx cards.
>>
>> K6- fast chip, nice price but there seem to be problems with the FPU- from
>> what I understand, this can interfere with much of the gameplay- is it a big
>> problem?
>>
>> PII- the cutting edge but expensive- may become overshadowed by Slot 2.
>>
>> Any additions, elaborations, etc. would be deeply appreciated.
>>
>> E-mail responses are welcome. Thanks
>I have a p200mmx which is more than adequate. I think the k6 would be a
>gamble. Many people had compatibility issues with the Cyrix chips that
>never seem to happen with Intel CPU's.
I think you do not know who MAKES the K6... K6 is made by AMD, NOT CYRIX.
The only mentioned problem I have heard with the K6 is mostly boards correctly
Identifying them and on some of the CPUs, the heat. According to Tom's
Hardware Guide, the K6 was at or above a Pentium MMX in some applications,
the only major suffering was under FPU (Which, is a given for any Non-Intel
based CPU). The thing to consider is the cost of getting a CPU and what
areas you are going to get the cpu for. If it is for a game, you might
be better off getting a Pentium than a Clone chip like the K6. The thing
about Tom's Hardware is that he states that if you are strictly for the games
especially DOS and Direct X based... You might even be better off with a
older Pentium 200 than a Pentium 200MMX. The speed improvement offered by
the MMX is solely if the program bothers USING the MMX instruction set and
double the current internal cache. Even his stated benchmarks for it says
just MINOR improvements in the areas of DOS and Direct X based applications.
If you REALLY want to have MMX, but not hurt your pocket, you can shoot for the K6. IF you got the money, you could go for a Pentium MMX... In most cases, however, it looks like a PPro is better than getting a K6 or Pentium MMX.
--
Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
(pri...@dhp.com or pri...@anime.muck.com) (Take out the 1 for non-spam mail)
Priss the MUF Wizard of _AnimeMUCK_ at anime.muck.com (199.245.105.32) 2035
Neil Harrington
Lisa Richardson <pr...@sanitarium.dhp.com> wrote in article
<5mmsef$3...@sanitarium.dhp.com>...
> Identifying them and on some of the CPUs, the heat. According to Tom's
> Hardware Guide, the K6 was at or above a Pentium MMX in some
applications,
> the only major suffering was under FPU (Which, is a given for any
Non-Intel
> based CPU). The thing to consider is the cost of getting a CPU and what
> areas you are going to get the cpu for. If it is for a game, you might
> be better off getting a Pentium than a Clone chip like the K6. The thing
> about Tom's Hardware is that he states that if you are strictly for the
games
> especially DOS and Direct X based... You might even be better off with a
> older Pentium 200 than a Pentium 200MMX. The speed improvement offered
by
> the MMX is solely if the program bothers USING the MMX instruction set
and
> double the current internal cache.
Lisa, as far as I know the larger cache is used by whatever runs on the
computer; it doesn't require any special programming to do this. Also, I
believe the MMX Pentiums have some improvements in pipelining and branch
prediction, which combined with the larger cache gives an improvement of
anywhere from 5 to 20 percent in performance with programs *not* using the
MMX instruction set.
> If you REALLY want to have MMX, but not hurt your pocket, you can shoot
for the K6.
Except that the K6 is said to be far behind the Intel processors in FPU
performance. For flight sim enthusiasts this is likely to be very
important, though it may be of little or no importance to other users.
> Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
What's a MUCK?
Neil
tom
Ken <kjb...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <338E53...@hotmail.com>...
> Andrew Ostergren wrote:
> >
> > I currently have a 486-66 w/ a 13/14 inch monitor. Sound card is no
name as
> > is the graphic card- nothing special. I want to upgrade my entire
system
> > without going into debt for the next several years so I want to try to
keep my
> > cost to approx $2500 or less. I would like to get some quality
components and
> > upgrade my monitor to a 17". I also want to try to get something that
I won't
> > have to upgrade in a year. I use the computer for general home office,
some
> > occasional graphic and game playing. Several months ago, I was sure I
was
> > going to get a Pentium 200 MMX. With the release of the K6 and PII, my
> > decision has become muddled. I would appreciate any help/suggestions.
> >
> > P200MMX- would allow a complete package of quality components ie- good
video
> > cards, nice monitor, good size HD. An Intel CPU which will not
conflict w/
> > 3Dfx cards.
> >
> > K6- fast chip, nice price but there seem to be problems with the FPU-
from
> > what I understand, this can interfere with much of the gameplay- is it
a big
> > problem?
> >
> > PII- the cutting edge but expensive- may become overshadowed by Slot 2.
> >
> > Any additions, elaborations, etc. would be deeply appreciated.
> >
> > E-mail responses are welcome. Thanks
> I have a p200mmx which is more than adequate. I think the k6 would be a
> gamble. Many people had compatibility issues with the Cyrix chips that
> never seem to happen with Intel CPU's.
>
so whats compatibility issues with Cyrix chips have to do with AMD k6 ??
--
tom More Info: http://www.netcom.com/~td115/infoamd.htm
remove .nospam to send e-mail
tom
Neil Harrington <nharr...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<01bc6dc7$4bfe2e80$b0db0a26@elnnharrington>...
Where did you get this K6 FPU is far behind Intel ??
Neil Harrington
tom <td...@ix.netcom.com.nospam> wrote in article
<01bc6dd8$8ba5e580$95c7...@tom.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
> Neil Harrington <nharr...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> <01bc6dc7$4bfe2e80$b0db0a26@elnnharrington>...
> > Except that the K6 is said to be far behind the Intel processors in FPU
> > performance. For flight sim enthusiasts this is likely to be very
> > important, though it may be of little or no importance to other users.
[ . . . ]
> Where did you get this K6 FPU is far behind Intel ??
That I can't specifically remember. I follow all the benchmarks and
comparisons of processors I can find anywhere on the Web, and that's the
impression I have from reading them all. I can't recall any comparison I've
seen, actually the result of testing, that showed K6's FPU anywhere near
the equal of Intel's. In non-FPU performance the K6 does seem to be
comparable to the PPro and PII, however.
Neil
Mouradian
that a K6 is cheaper than an Intel P200 MMX.
I can get a K6 200 for $415
I can get a P200 MMX for $438.
Go to www.pricewatch.com and look it up for yourself!
A difference of $23.
Oooh, big deal.
And for the FPU. Look at graphic intesive games like Quake. The K6 was 4
to 5 FPS slower than the P200 MMX.
$23 for 4 to 5 FPS. Yeah, that sounds like a good investment.
Also, the K6 is more suited to run on NT. I noticed that the CPU running
16 bit applications ran more slowly than an Intel 200 MMX running 16 bit
applications according to Winstone 97.
Lisa Richardson
In <01bc6dd8$8ba5e580$95c7...@tom.ix.netcom.com> "tom" <td...@ix.netcom.com.nospam> writes:
>> > If you REALLY want to have MMX, but not hurt your pocket, you can shoot
>> for the K6.
>>
>> Except that the K6 is said to be far behind the Intel processors in FPU
>> performance. For flight sim enthusiasts this is likely to be very
>> important, though it may be of little or no importance to other users.
>>
>Where did you get this K6 FPU is far behind Intel ??
To cover both messages pointed out by Neil and Tom... I believe I stated
that the K6 had a poor FPU, but if the choice between having a Cheap, but
fairly equivalent CPU vs an expensive, but much more improved CPU... And
you only have a small amount of money. Might as well go for the K6.
Getting a K6-200 is about getting a P166 with MMX. The FPU might be
around a 133 or 166, it will help in other areas if you need the speed.
Tom's hardware suggested also that if you had a choice between CPU or a
Video card, you would be better off with a Video Card for speed increase
graphics wise. The specs for the K6 versus a Pentium MMX is at:
http://www.sysdoc.pair.com/k6.html. He also has a spec on mmx, at
http://www.sysdoc.pair.com/mmx.html. He states that MMX is NOT a major
improvement for gaming situations, since you need programs that specifically
use the MMX instructionset. He even proved it with his benchmarkings
using Quake's Timedemo, showing that yes, it was good for things it was
targetting for, but beyond that... DirectX and DOS games had a very small
improvement for the amount of money you are shelling out for it.
Check it out.
--
Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
Heikki Kultala
> >>
> >> I currently have a 486-66 w/ a 13/14 inch monitor. Sound card is no name as
> >> is the graphic card- nothing special. I want to upgrade my entire system
> >> without going into debt for the next several years so I want to try to keep my
> >> cost to approx $2500 or less. I would like to get some quality components and
> >> upgrade my monitor to a 17". I also want to try to get something that I won't
> >> have to upgrade in a year. I use the computer for general home office, some
> >> occasional graphic and game playing. Several months ago, I was sure I was
> >> going to get a Pentium 200 MMX. With the release of the K6 and PII, my
> >> decision has become muddled. I would appreciate any help/suggestions.
> >>
> >> P200MMX- would allow a complete package of quality components ie- good video
> >> cards, nice monitor, good size HD. An Intel CPU which will not conflict w/
> >> 3Dfx cards.
> >>
> >> K6- fast chip, nice price but there seem to be problems with the FPU- from
> >> what I understand, this can interfere with much of the gameplay- is it a big
> >> problem?
> >>
> >> PII- the cutting edge but expensive- may become overshadowed by Slot 2.
> >>
> >> Any additions, elaborations, etc. would be deeply appreciated.
> >>
> >> E-mail responses are welcome. Thanks
> >I have a p200mmx which is more than adequate. I think the k6 would be a
> >gamble. Many people had compatibility issues with the Cyrix chips that
> >never seem to happen with Intel CPU's.
>
> rationale:
>
> P200MMX with a 3D card is probably fast enough for any hi-res hi-color
> 3D games for a year or 2. All the games that I have seen can at least
> run ok on p200MMX without 3D acceleration and usually flies with it.
>
> P2 is too expensive and you will never be sure about K6.
>
> I would also expect future games to use the MMX instructions which
> will greatly enhance performance of 3D games. So the chance that you
> need a new system soon is not great.
MöMMöX-instructions will not enchance 3d-performance, because in modern
3d-software/games ( like quake , not in old like doom ) the
3d-calculations are done in FPU , and MöMMöX-instruction and FPU can't
be used at same time.
f...@sprynet.com
"Neil Harrington" <nharr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>tom <td...@ix.netcom.com.nospam> wrote in article
><01bc6dd8$8ba5e580$95c7...@tom.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>>
>> Neil Harrington <nharr...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
>> <01bc6dc7$4bfe2e80$b0db0a26@elnnharrington>...
>
>> > Except that the K6 is said to be far behind the Intel processors in FPU
>> > performance. For flight sim enthusiasts this is likely to be very
>> > important, though it may be of little or no importance to other users.
>[ . . . ]
>
>> Where did you get this K6 FPU is far behind Intel ??
>
>That I can't specifically remember. I follow all the benchmarks and
>comparisons of processors I can find anywhere on the Web, and that's the
>impression I have from reading them all. I can't recall any comparison I've
>seen, actually the result of testing, that showed K6's FPU anywhere near
>the equal of Intel's. In non-FPU performance the K6 does seem to be
>comparable to the PPro and PII, however.
>
>Neil
>
>
I think if you look carefully at the K6 benchmarks and not the K5.
You will find that the K6 FPU is equal to or better than the Pentium
or the Pentium Pro. Please refer to :
http://www.jump.net/~lcs/k6-bench.html
Felix
Neil Harrington
> In <01bc6dd8$8ba5e580$95c7...@tom.ix.netcom.com> "tom"
> To cover both messages pointed out by Neil and Tom... I believe I stated
> that the K6 had a poor FPU, but if the choice between having a Cheap, but
> fairly equivalent CPU vs an expensive, but much more improved CPU... And
> you only have a small amount of money. Might as well go for the K6.
> Getting a K6-200 is about getting a P166 with MMX. The FPU might be
> around a 133 or 166, it will help in other areas if you need the speed.
>
> Tom's hardware suggested also that if you had a choice between CPU or a
> Video card, you would be better off with a Video Card for speed increase
> graphics wise. The specs for the K6 versus a Pentium MMX is at:
> http://www.sysdoc.pair.com/k6.html. He also has a spec on mmx, at
> http://www.sysdoc.pair.com/mmx.html. He states that MMX is NOT a major
> improvement for gaming situations, since you need programs that
specifically
> use the MMX instructionset. He even proved it with his benchmarkings
> using Quake's Timedemo, showing that yes, it was good for things it was
> targetting for, but beyond that... DirectX and DOS games had a very
small
> improvement for the amount of money you are shelling out for it.
Note, however, that when he compared the K6 and Pentium MMX at the same
clock speed, that same Quake Timedemo showed the P/MMX well ahead of the
K6, and the PPro far ahead of either. Presumably the Pentium II (not
compared in that table) would be even faster, putting the K6 right at the
bottom of the pile by this measure. The K6 sells now for about the same as
the Pentium MMX--and Intel will probably cut P/MMX prices further in a
couple of months.
The danger here is in relying on any one benchmark. Going by the few
reports so far, it seems that the K6 is a better buy than comparably priced
Intel chips at this point for Windows 95 business apps, but not so good for
games, at least those using FP heavily.
> Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
I'd still like to know what MUCKs are!
Neil
Neil Harrington
f...@sprynet.com wrote in article <3390c50a...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> I think if you look carefully at the K6 benchmarks and not the K5.
> You will find that the K6 FPU is equal to or better than the Pentium
> or the Pentium Pro. Please refer to :
> http://www.jump.net/~lcs/k6-bench.html
Interesting. I don't think I've heard of the particular benchmark they're
using, and it doesn't seem to agree with what I've read elsewhere. But it's
certainly worth keeping an eye on all the benchmarks that get published,
and I'm sure we'll see lots more of 'em.
As already pointed out, the K6 doesn't do well compared to the Pentium, and
is far behind the Pentium Pro, on the Quake Timedemo benchmark--which some
have taken to be one practical measure of FPU-intensive game performance.
But it's early days yet for the K6.
Neil
Daryl Souter
I feel Tom's views regarding MMX as a game platform were not justified
fairly, as games are just starting to come out with MMX enhanced code.
To say that 'MMX is NOT a major improvement for gaming
situations' at this stage is like saying DVD is not an improvement in
video technology; It's ridiculous! Gamers will more than likely enjoy
hundreds of MMX enhanced titles comming very soon in the future, which
are sure to run alot better than non MMX versions. I guarantee it!
--
* To reply via email, remove the ^ characters from my email address *
Daryl.
Michael Quan Lin
Lisa Richardson (pr...@sanitarium.dhp.com) wrote:
:
: To cover both messages pointed out by Neil and Tom... I believe I stated
: that the K6 had a poor FPU, but if the choice between having a Cheap, but
: fairly equivalent CPU vs an expensive, but much more improved CPU... And
: you only have a small amount of money. Might as well go for the K6.
: Getting a K6-200 is about getting a P166 with MMX. The FPU might be
: around a 133 or 166, it will help in other areas if you need the speed.
Actually a K6-200 is more comparable to PPro 200 if you check webpage that
you listed below. The FPU is more comparable to a P166-200 MMX for a K6,
but as you've stated below it's better to spend you money on a Diamond
moster or Orchid righteous if you want good quake performance on any CPU.
:
: Tom's hardware suggested also that if you had a choice between CPU or a
: Video card, you would be better off with a Video Card for speed increase
: graphics wise. The specs for the K6 versus a Pentium MMX is at:
: http://www.sysdoc.pair.com/k6.html. He also has a spec on mmx, at
: http://www.sysdoc.pair.com/mmx.html. He states that MMX is NOT a major
: improvement for gaming situations, since you need programs that specifically
: use the MMX instructionset. He even proved it with his benchmarkings
: using Quake's Timedemo, showing that yes, it was good for things it was
: targetting for, but beyond that... DirectX and DOS games had a very small
: improvement for the amount of money you are shelling out for it.
:
: Check it out.
******************************************************************************
"Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the
counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou
two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out."
-Monty Python: Holy Handgrenade of Antioch
Michael Q. Lin
******************************************************************************
Michael Quan Lin
Neil Harrington (nharr...@earthlink.net) wrote:
:
: Note, however, that when he compared the K6 and Pentium MMX at the same
: clock speed, that same Quake Timedemo showed the P/MMX well ahead of the
: K6, and the PPro far ahead of either. Presumably the Pentium II (not
: compared in that table) would be even faster, putting the K6 right at the
: bottom of the pile by this measure. The K6 sells now for about the same as
: the Pentium MMX--and Intel will probably cut P/MMX prices further in a
: couple of months.
You can expect AMD to drop the prices on their K6s also. This is
definetly the time where you want to ask yourself why you want to buy a
new computer. If you want a game machine, I suggest just getting K6-166
or a P200MMX and spend the rest of the money on RAM, a graphic card, and
a 3d card. (Or buy an N64) If you actually plan to use your computer,
then I suggest getting a K6 or wait for the PII to drop to a reasonable
price.
: The danger here is in relying on any one benchmark. Going by the few
: reports so far, it seems that the K6 is a better buy than comparably priced
: Intel chips at this point for Windows 95 business apps, but not so good for
: games, at least those using FP heavily.
:
If your are only in it for the games (especially quake and other 3d games),
then definetly save yourself some money and go with the K6-166 or a P200
MMX. Then buy a diamond monster or orchid righteous because you get a lot
better game performance that way. I compared a P150 (non-MMX with a
diamond monster) running glquake to a PPro 200 running winquake and the
P150 ran smoother with better color depth. (Not to mention that you can
activate the water transparency and reflective surfaces in glquake. ^_^ )
:
: I'd still like to know what MUCKs are!
:
MUCKs are like MUDs (Multi User Dungeon) and MUSHs. Basically you go to
the MUCK/MUD/MUSH site and you role-play an alternate personality in a
kind of an on-line Dungeons and Dragons.
Mark Hahn
: video technology; It's ridiculous! Gamers will more than likely enjoy
: hundreds of MMX enhanced titles comming very soon in the future, which
: are sure to run alot better than non MMX versions. I guarantee it!
you should study MMX and game programming a little before
expounding so authoritatively. MMX, in fact, is of marginal
use to games, since it's a pretty trivial set of additional
instructions. not useless - it can provide a small benefit
when rendering, but rendering is not the major time-sink in
games. if you'd study games programming, you'd learn that
serious games people are far more interested in using new
3D video hardware, which pretty much eliminates anything MMX
has to offer (offloading the rendering and even the projection
code onto dedicated (fast) hardware on the video board.).
MMX is three things:
- a nice update of the P5 (the larger cache, etc).
- some minor SIMD instructions used only in obscure places.
- Intel marketing ploy.
regards, mark hahn.
--
operator may differ from spokesperson. ha...@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu
http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/~hahn/
A.L.Fransen
Andrew Ostergren wrote:
>
> I currently have a 486-66 w/ a 13/14 inch monitor. Sound card is no name as
> is the graphic card- nothing special. I want to upgrade my entire system
> without going into debt for the next several years so I want to try to keep my
> cost to approx $2500 or less. I would like to get some quality components and
> upgrade my monitor to a 17". I also want to try to get something that I won't
> have to upgrade in a year. I use the computer for general home office, some
> occasional graphic and game playing. Several months ago, I was sure I was
> going to get a Pentium 200 MMX. With the release of the K6 and PII, my
> decision has become muddled. I would appreciate any help/suggestions.
>
> P200MMX- would allow a complete package of quality components ie- good video
> cards, nice monitor, good size HD. An Intel CPU which will not conflict w/
> 3Dfx cards.
>
> K6- fast chip, nice price but there seem to be problems with the FPU-
NOT TRUE NOT TRUE STOP THE GOSSIP, READ FACTS!!!!
Damnit, when does this gossip die? The K6 is not a Cyrix or a K5! The
FPU is even faster than a Pentium's!
(the PentiumPro and the Pentium II are faster on a per MHZ-base though,
but not on a per $$ base...)
> from
> what I understand, this can interfere with much of the gameplay- is it a big
> problem?
Only, reportedly, with GLQUAKE, because it takes advantage of some
ondocumented bug/features to speed up the code.
But still, on a per MHZ-base, it's some 5%. With other games, the K6 is
faster per MHZ as well as per $$.
The fastest you can buy to play games is the PentiumII-233 and up,
though.
>
> PII- the cutting edge but expensive- may become overshadowed by Slot 2.
Don't forget, it needs a special motherboard, which aren't as well-built
and evolved as the socket7-boards.
The PII might even die the same way the PPro did, because it lacks the
same open-architecture.(didn't Apple learn this lesson allready?)
A.L.Fransen
> > > the only major suffering was under FPU (Which, is a given for any
> > Non-Intel
> > > based CPU).
AS I POSTED 20-times before, the K6 DOES NOT HAVE A SLOWER CPU THAN AN
INTEL.
That's the cyrix and the k5 you're talking about.
> >
> > > If you REALLY want to have MMX, but not hurt your pocket, you can shoot
> > for the K6.
> >
> > Except that the K6 is said to be far behind the Intel processors in FPU
> > performance.
SIGH...'it is said'...BUT NOT TRUE! read http://www.ix.de/ct or
ZDwinbench on their page.
STICK TO FACTS, please? Why should the K6 die, because people 'heard'
and 'thought to be'?
As if we are all proud Intel-fans! Give other companies a chance, and
don't talk nonsense.
> > For flight sim enthusiasts this is likely to be very
> > important, though it may be of little or no importance to other users.
NO, only GL-Quake suffers some 5% performance-loss on a per MHZ
comparison with a PentiumMMX. (not on a per $$ base though)
Duke3d is faster on a K6-200 then on a Pentium200-MMX.(some 5%)
> >
> > > Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
> >
> > What's a MUCK?
> >
> > Neil
> >
> Where did you get this K6 FPU is far behind Intel ??
Yeah, were?
>
> --
A.L.Fransen
Truthseeker/bringer
Larry Chang
Daryl Souter wrote:
>
> I feel Tom's views regarding MMX as a game platform were not justified
> fairly, as games are just starting to come out with MMX enhanced code.
> situations' at this stage is like saying DVD is not an improvement in
> hundreds of MMX enhanced titles comming very soon in the future, which
> are sure to run alot better than non MMX versions. I guarantee it!
>
You may be right, but remember one thing. The CD-ROM has been out for
several years before it become anything important in game industry. As
the MMX is just coming out, saying that it will have important impact is
still too early.
Larry
Nosferatu
Daryl Souter <dso^uter@^cwave.com> wrote:
>I feel Tom's views regarding MMX as a game platform were not justified
>fairly, as games are just starting to come out with MMX enhanced code.
>To say that 'MMX is NOT a major improvement for gaming
>situations' at this stage is like saying DVD is not an improvement in
>video technology; It's ridiculous! Gamers will more than likely enjoy
>hundreds of MMX enhanced titles comming very soon in the future, which
>are sure to run alot better than non MMX versions. I guarantee it!
BS, for us flight simmers a MMX cpu is of not much use because the fpu
is required for many sims to calculate flight modelling data. This is
posted in the flight sim group so I expect this is just flame bait.
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
Anthony Hill
On 1 Jun 1997 19:29:28 GMT, "Neil Harrington"
Well, if AMD engineering types can be believed, the K6 FPU
actually IS as good as a Pentiums, or even a PPros, however software
has to be optimized for that FPU. Most FPU intensive software (and
especially Quake) is specifically optimized to run on an Intel FPU.
If the AMD engineers are telling the truth (and their story does make
sense), then the K6 could run a version of Quake optimzed for the AMD
FPU just as fast as a Pentium could run the standard (Intel FPU
optimized) version of Quake. Of course, until there's any software
that's optimized for the AMD FPU, the point is moot.
Anthony Hill | Sig files? SIG FILES?! What the
ah...@travel-net.com | hell do I need a sig file for?!
Michael Kirchner
f...@sprynet.com wrote:
> I think if you look carefully at the K6 benchmarks and not the K5.
> You will find that the K6 FPU is equal to or better than the Pentium
> or the Pentium Pro. Please refer to :
> http://www.jump.net/~lcs/k6-bench.html
>
I've no idea which software was used to create the numbers that are
given in the page quoted above. I only want to refer to the results
given in the floating point section.
It is claimed, that a P55C (aka P200MMX) scores 14 Linpack MFLOPS and 32
FLOP MFLOPS whereas a PPro running at the same speed reaches 12 and 27
MFLOPS respectively.
I can only suppose that these test might have been 16 bit DOS programs
or that the PPro system must have been configured very badly, because it
is widely accepted (and not only claimed by Intel) that a PPro-200 has
at least 1.3 times the FPU performance of a P55C-200. At least a PPro
will _NEVER_ be slower in FPU calculus than a P55C when compared under
equal conditions - this is a statment that I verified for myself when
running FPU intensive calculations under Linux.
Insofar I've got some reservations concerning the other FPU benchmark
results presented on that page.
Regards,
Michael
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kirchner
Institut fuer Kommunikationsakustik _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/
Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/
Phone: +49 234 700 5872 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
FAX : +49 234 709 4165 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
email: kirc...@ika.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
------------------------------------------------------------------------
finbar the real thing saunders
Jester (gen...@rpi.edu) wrote:
: Ken (kjb...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: : I have a p200mmx which is more than adequate. I think the k6 would be a
: : gamble. Many people had compatibility issues with the Cyrix chips that
: : never seem to happen with Intel CPU's.
: Remember, AMD != Cyrix ... AMD has been making solid chips for years and
: years and years. I've been running my K6 pretty intensively and haven't
: had a single problem to date. not to mention that with the exception of
: Quake, i'm running things faster and for less $$$ then your P200MMX.
So you're running the K6 clocked faster than the 250mhz that the last guy
said he was running his P200MMX at or are you saying the K6 is faster at
the same clock speed ?
(By the was, my post here was directed at several groups, not by me but
the above article must have had followups to: set, I don't do this so
I'm sorry if it offended anyone)
Darren
Doug Zabel
Matt <sp...@protection.plus> wrote:
Absolutely - LaserBOY (apt name) is an idiot. The P166MMX is a MUCH
better value.
Neil Harrington
Anthony Hill <ah...@travel-net.com> wrote in article
<33923c20...@nntp.uunet.ca>...
Yes, exactly. That's interesting, though.
If it's true, then I suppose it all depends on the commercial success of
the K6, whether or not anyone bothers to write code optimized for its FPU.
I believe Intel has something like 90 percent of the PC processor market,
with AMD, Cyrix, and everyone else divvying up the other 10 percent. I
should think the K6 would have to be really a roaring success in the
marketplace before we'll see much, or any, stuff optimized for its FPU. And
even then it will be entirely secondary to their efforts for Intel FPUs.
How much work is it, I wonder, to optimize code for one or the other?
Neil
Jester
finbar "the real thing" saunders (fin...@redcat.org.uk) wrote:
: So you're running the K6 clocked faster than the 250mhz that the last guy
: the same clock speed ?
A K6 is faster then a P200MMX at _most_ things w/ the same clock speed.
In general, performance of a K6200 is more similar to a P6200.
--
Jeff Gentry jes...@rpi.edu RPI CompSci Senior
SEX DRUGS UNIX
Lisa Richardson
In <01bc6eb5$99b149c0$66341a26@elnnharrington> "Neil Harrington" <nharr...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Note, however, that when he compared the K6 and Pentium MMX at the same
>clock speed, that same Quake Timedemo showed the P/MMX well ahead of the
>K6, and the PPro far ahead of either. Presumably the Pentium II (not
>compared in that table) would be even faster, putting the K6 right at the
>bottom of the pile by this measure. The K6 sells now for about the same as
>the Pentium MMX--and Intel will probably cut P/MMX prices further in a
>couple of months.
>The danger here is in relying on any one benchmark. Going by the few
>reports so far, it seems that the K6 is a better buy than comparably priced
>Intel chips at this point for Windows 95 business apps, but not so good for
>games, at least those using FP heavily.
I really WISH you bother reading my entire message and the webpage that
I specified before running off your mouth like that. I specifically SAID
several times now that the K6 is a CHEAP alternative if you really need
to have MMX, go with the K6. Just be aware that you will lose some of
the performance that the FPU of an Intel Has. Furthermore, it was stated
on the MMX comparison between a Pentium 200 slightly overclocked versus
a Pentium 166 with MMX and Pentium 200 MMX that is slightly over clocked
that the improvement of MMX was slight for the cost. There are several
benchmark checks not just the Quake Time Demo.
--
Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
Lisa Richardson
>I feel Tom's views regarding MMX as a game platform were not justified
>fairly, as games are just starting to come out with MMX enhanced code.
>To say that 'MMX is NOT a major improvement for gaming
>situations' at this stage is like saying DVD is not an improvement in
>video technology; It's ridiculous! Gamers will more than likely enjoy
>hundreds of MMX enhanced titles comming very soon in the future, which
>are sure to run alot better than non MMX versions. I guarantee it!
I must be talking to myself if people only read PART of what I write...
I stated that the judgement was made against programs that do not have
MMX instruction sets, and until someone bother getting into the MMX wave.
The problem is, the SDKs for Win95 do not feature having MMX information
and so far, there has not been a major push for MMX. Too many programs
right now are geared for Non-MMX at this time.
Mark
I have both an Intel P-200MMX and a AMD K-6 200MMX.
Here are some numbers to play with:
K6-200 Dhrystone: MIPS 405 Whetstone:
MFLOPS 121
Pentium 200 Dhrystone: MIPS 393 Whetstone:
MFLOPS 121
As you can see the performance is pretty close, but check out these
numbers:
RAM read avg K6-200 426 MB/s Pentium 200 442
RAM write avg 421 MB/s
86
RAM Copy avg 188 MB/s
77
Now that is alot different.
Numbers however, do not mean anything in "real world" use. Using both I've
found the K6-200MMX to be slightly faster "overall" than the Pentium
200MMX. Also, I'd prevoiusly found the MMX200 to be slightly faster
overall to the Pro 200. I have also had no problems with incompatability.
That is basically an Intel load of crap to scare people from buying other
that Intel. (running Windows95. Windows NT Cairo tests coming soon)
The Pentium II 233 would be the fastest, but that is mainly due to the
increased speed of the processor. Let's put the Pentium II 233 up against
the AMD K-6 233 in a month or so and see what happens!
Mark
Michael Kirchner wrote in article <3393C2...@aea.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>...
A.L.Fransen wrote:
>
[]
> > K6- fast chip, nice price but there seem to be problems with the FPU-
>
> NOT TRUE NOT TRUE STOP THE GOSSIP, READ FACTS!!!!
> Damnit, when does this gossip die? The K6 is not a Cyrix or a K5! The
> FPU is even faster than a Pentium's!
> (the PentiumPro and the Pentium II are faster on a per MHZ-base though,
> but not on a per $$ base...)
>
It might be a good idea to do the same for yourself - read and accept
the facts!
The FPU of the K6 can't compare with the FPU of any Intel
(P54C/P55C/P6/P-II) running at the same clockspeed!
Up to now, you'll definitively not find any arbitrary compiler which
creates code for the K6 that runs faster on its FPU than code created
for Intel runs on Intels FPU. Love it or hate it - it's a fact. I don't
know whether code for the K6 can be hand optimized to run faster than
code for Intel - but you musn't forget that such effort must be done by
the software companies. Right now we have three P5 competitors (P54C,
K6, M2) each of which has a different FPU unit. I doubt that programmers
will take the time to hand-optimize the code for all three FPUs. As
Intel up to now has got the largest number of processors sold an
optimization might be made for their FPU, though.
However let me point it out again. The fact thet it's FPU performs worse
doesn't make the K6 the worse processor at all! From my point of view
it's the best bang for the buck in wide areas like business
applications, DTP and of course family PCs. Who mainly uses the computer
for such purposes is much better on buying a K6 an saving the money
compared to a P55C (or spending it for extra memory).
Anyway, there do exit applications where the extra money for an Intel
may be spent well. This is engineering software like simulations which
mainly use floating point arithemetics and probably CAD. Another thing
is gaming, especially running games which extensively use the FPU.
For engineering purposee the PPro is by far the better solution (as long
as you don't have to mess around with old 16 bit applications) and for
new 3D-games based on D3D you'll probably prefer to buy a K6 and 3dfx
card than relying on the Intel FPU.
If money doesn't hurt you, you can still go for Intel and buy a P-II
which really is the best CPU for gaming.
Same holds true here: Maybe code optimized for the K6 may reduce the
differences in fututre but up to now we'll have to use what we can get
to measure performance.
Cheers,
Michael Kirchner
scubart
-big snip--
Man
this is all very confusing.
After being to several stores, reading a lot of articles and reviews
in PC-magazines I thought Usenet would provide some answers on
what system to buy next.
I thought a K6-200 with a Tx97-board, 32Mb, 3.1Giga, 12speed cdrom, a diamond
video (i forgot the type) and
some other gadgets was not a bad choice.
I seems that everybody has its own opinion(no problem with that :-))
but I do not get a step further with choosing a system.
The same goes for Video-cards.
Please if you are sure you can give me clues and perhaps direct
me to a URL with usefull info E-mail me and tell me all about it
'cause I still want to buy a new system (use of system is: Word, Internet,
gameplay, this_and_thats)
Thank you all very much and keep up this discussions!
Bart
Jester
Michael Kirchner (kirc...@aea.ruhr-uni-bochum.de) wrote:
: Anyway, there do exit applications where the extra money for an Intel
: may be spent well. This is engineering software like simulations which
: mainly use floating point arithemetics and probably CAD. Another thing
: is gaming, especially running games which extensively use the FPU.
: For engineering purposee the PPro is by far the better solution (as long
Hmmm ... I didn't know they started calling Alphas "PPros" ... seems very
odd. How can you say that a PPro is at all going to be better in a
computationally intensive environment then is an Alpha? :)
chris
tom <td...@ix.netcom.com.nospam> wrote in article
<01bc6dd7$8a297420$95c7...@tom.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
> Ken <kjb...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <338E53...@hotmail.com>...
> > Andrew Ostergren wrote:
> > >
> > > I currently have a 486-66 w/ a 13/14 inch monitor. Sound card is no
> name as
> > > is the graphic card- nothing special. I want to upgrade my entire
> system
> > > without going into debt for the next several years so I want to try
to
> keep my
> > > cost to approx $2500 or less. I would like to get some quality
You should really look into buying a new computer.. that way you still have
your older one to use also. When you start spending more than 2000, you
can usually get a good new computer. Also, many new computers will come
with 17" monitors.
chris
Rick Stanley Francis
scubart wrote:
>
> -big snip--
>
> Man
> this is all very confusing.
> After being to several stores, reading a lot of articles and reviews
> in PC-magazines I thought Usenet would provide some answers on
> what system to buy next.
The problem with usenet is providing too many contradictory answers!
> I thought a K6-200 with a Tx97-board, 32Mb, 3.1Giga, 12speed cdrom, a diamond
> video (i forgot the type) and
> some other gadgets was not a bad choice.
All in all it sounds like a fairly good choice to me... I have a P120
right now and find it to be fast enough for almost all the games so
getting a K6200 should cover anything likely to come out soon. Games
are the really demanding part running word or other busnesss software
works fine on a 486. The only additional suggestion that I would make
is to get a 3D accelerator card if you like action games- the 3dfx
voodoo cards (see http://www.3dfx.com/) (Diamond's monster 3d or
orchid's righteous 3d) are running ~$200 and they are quite nice for 3d,
although you still need a 2d card for windows etc. Another possability
is that hercules will soon be releasing a card that has both 2d & 3d
accereration the stingray 1283D (see http://207.90.189.3:80/s1283d/)
> I seems that everybody has its own opinion(no problem with that :-))
> but I do not get a step further with choosing a system.
> The same goes for Video-cards.
Yes, although I've found that 2d performance is pretty much euqal (or at
least real percieved speed) between all of the newer cards. So don't
worry too much about what card you get you are only going to get
marginal improvements.
> Thank you all very much and keep up this discussions!
Good Luck!
-Rick Francis
ri...@leland.stanford.edu
Anthony Hill
On 2 Jun 1997 12:51:40 GMT, "Neil Harrington"
If memeory serves, AMD and Cyrix combined have about %13 of
the x86 market. AMD claims that they want to eventually take
something like %20 of new PC sales with their K6 chips, although I'd
say that's a touch high, given the average level of consumer ignorance
when it comes to processors ("What? Isn't Intel the only company in
the world to make prcoessors?" :> ).
>should think the K6 would have to be really a roaring success in the
>marketplace before we'll see much, or any, stuff optimized for its FPU. And
>even then it will be entirely secondary to their efforts for Intel FPUs.
>How much work is it, I wonder, to optimize code for one or the other?
Well, I think this might partially depend on how well AMD
markets this chip. If they're statements about the FPU are accurate,
what AMD should really do is to modify soem software themselves to
demonstrate it to the public. For example, AMD could get together
with ID and work out an K6 optimized version of Quake. While this
might not really attract many Quake players to AMD, it would give them
some marketing material to show the public that even in a
tradiationally Intel dominated application (Quake), AMD can compete at
a lower cost.
Neil Harrington
chris <rast...@itw.com> wrote in article
<01bc702d$2ead9ba0$0200a8c0@chris>...
> > > Andrew Ostergren wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I currently have a 486-66 w/ a 13/14 inch monitor. Sound card is
no
> > name as
> > > > is the graphic card- nothing special. I want to upgrade my entire
> > system
> > > > without going into debt for the next several years so I want to try
> to
> > keep my
> > > > cost to approx $2500 or less. I would like to get some quality
> You should really look into buying a new computer.. that way you still
have
> your older one to use also. When you start spending more than 2000, you
> can usually get a good new computer. Also, many new computers will come
> with 17" monitors.
> chris
I think so too. Today you can get a top-rated machine with all the
important goodies for under $2500. A Micron Millennia MME, Pentium 200 MMX,
32 MB SDRAM, 512K pipeline cache, 3.1MB hard disk, two USB ports, Win95
OSR2 with Plus!, 100MB Zip drive, Stealth 3D 2000 Pro 4MB, 17" .26 monitor,
wavetable 32 sound, USR 56K modem, 16V CD-ROM drive, MS Intellimouse, MS
Office SBE, along with Pod and other assorted games and software, is $2399.
It'd be mighty hard to upgrade an existing machine to that specification
for $2500. And buying it all together gets you a three-year warranty on the
system as well.
Neil
Michael Kirchner
Mark wrote:
>
[]
>
> Numbers however, do not mean anything in "real world" use. Using both I've
> found the K6-200MMX to be slightly faster "overall" than the Pentium
> 200MMX. Also, I'd prevoiusly found the MMX200 to be slightly faster
> overall to the Pro 200. I have also had no problems with incompatability.
If you came to the conclusion that the overall performance of a P200MMX
was slightly higher than that of a PPro200 can only mean that you worked
with 16 bit applications or were using software that could take
advantage of of MMX instructions or 16/16KB primary cache.
I've also worked with both, a PPro and a P200MMX which were equipped
equally in terms of video card and RAM and the PPro was either 'waiting
faster ;-)' when I did things like text processing or at least 10-40%
faster when I was running simulations under Linux. This difference in
execution speed was present in both, self written C/C++-Code and using
math software (PV-Wave). Keep in mind, that the simulations had a large
amount of floating point atithmetic which I guess was the reason for the
better performance of the PPro.
If you basically use integer arithmetic you'll probably not note any
performance difference between a PPro200 and a P200MMX.
> That is basically an Intel load of crap to scare people from buying other
> that Intel. (running Windows95. Windows NT Cairo tests coming soon)
>
> The Pentium II 233 would be the fastest, but that is mainly due to the
> increased speed of the processor. Let's put the Pentium II 233 up against
> the AMD K-6 233 in a month or so and see what happens!
>
> Mark
>
Michael
Dan Barbato
> > P2 is too expensive and you will never be sure about K6.
Like the K-5, the K-6 is not only x86 compatible, but Pentium-code
compatible.The only problem with the K-6 is that, whilst the
PentiumMMX/Pentium II can perform 2 MMX ops per cycle, the K-6 can only
perform 1.
U may also like to take a look at the Cyrix/IBM 6x86MX processor
which has just been released.It'll be a while be4 that starts to ship in
volume.It is an advanced version of the 6x86, much in the same way the
Pentium II is a development of the Pentium "Classic".It also has MMX, and
whilst I can't be sure, I believe it performs 2 MMX ops per clock cycle.It
will be released initially in 6x86MX PR-166/200/233 versions - the 1st two
CPU's equivalent to Pentium MMX 166 & 200 processors, and the 3rd version
equivalent to Intel's Pentium II 233.
I like the Cyrix chip, but beware!! The 6x86 was only "x86
compatible", and NOT Pentium-compatible (thankfully the VAST majority of
s/w doesn't contain Pentium-specific code).I'm not sure about the 6x86MX,
but I suspect that it is the same as its predecessor in this regard.Cyrix
was able to achieve speeds superior to the Pentium (per Mhz) when running
x86 code in large measure because they ,in large measure, bypassed the
problem of Pentium-specific code compatibility.AMD chose to make their K-5
and K-6 processors not only x86, but also Pentium-code compatible.As a
result, their silicon came to market much later than Cyrix, and although
they still manage to undercut Intel, they weren't able 2 get the superior
speeds that Cyrix produced (eg. the Cx 6x86 P166+ is equal to, or faster
than a Pentium 166, but it actually runs at only 133Mhz)
AMD,Crix,IBM and some other companies now use a PR (Performance
Rating) on their processors, so customers can gauge at what speed, compared
to a Pentium/Pentium II CPU, their processors run at.The actual clock-speed
of the chip is irrelevant (according to these manufacturers) - it's how
they compare to an equivalent Intel CPU, and the idea has a LOT of
merit.There's no use Cyrix or IBM selling their 150Mhz Cx 6x86 as a 150Mhz
processor, because it is actually as fast as a Pentium 200.
Also, beware that the top range 6x86 and 6x86MX processors run at
clock-speed multiples of 75Mhz, unlike Pentium MMX CPU's which have a
maximum external clock speed of 66Mhz.That means u have to have a
motherboard and RAM that support that clock-speed.Many m/b's won't run
above 66Mhz, and most normal EDO RAM just isn't designed to run at speeds
above 66Mhz.That's why m/b's that DO run at 75Mhz also have space for at
least 1 bank of SDRAM (synchronous DRAM) which WILL run at the faster
speed.
> MöMMöX-instructions will not enchance 3d-performance, because in modern
> 3d-software/games ( like quake , not in old like doom ) the
> 3d-calculations are done in FPU , and MöMMöX-instruction and FPU can't
> be used at same time.
U r right, but all that will happen is that instead of using the FPU for
normal floating-point ops, the programmers will use the FPU for MMX ops to
improve and accelerate their graphics.I'm not sure about Quake, but many
games use the FPU to boost graphics, especially the 3D variety - those
games will simply use their FPU for MMX ops instead.Others use them for
other calculations (eg. many flight-sims use the FPU to calculate data for
the aircraft's flight-model, environment physics etc.).The games that r in
the 2nd category would probably not be able to use the FPU for MMX - that's
where the 3D card comes in.
Michael Kirchner
Opps. Seems you got me wrong.
The original message concerned CPUs of x86 type (see the subject). I
only ment that in the area of 'pure' x86 CPUs the PPro has the best FPU
performance.
However the Alpha is much faster in this respect, no doubt.
Neil Harrington
Lisa Richardson <pr...@sanitarium.dhp.com> wrote in article
<5mtpsn$3...@sanitarium.dhp.com>...
> In <01bc6eb5$99b149c0$66341a26@elnnharrington> "Neil Harrington"
<nharr...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >Note, however, that when he compared the K6 and Pentium MMX at the same
> >clock speed, that same Quake Timedemo showed the P/MMX well ahead of the
> >K6, and the PPro far ahead of either. Presumably the Pentium II (not
> >compared in that table) would be even faster, putting the K6 right at
the
> >bottom of the pile by this measure. The K6 sells now for about the same
as
> >the Pentium MMX--and Intel will probably cut P/MMX prices further in a
> >couple of months.
>
> >The danger here is in relying on any one benchmark. Going by the few
> >reports so far, it seems that the K6 is a better buy than comparably
priced
> >Intel chips at this point for Windows 95 business apps, but not so good
for
> >games, at least those using FP heavily.
>
>
> I really WISH you bother reading my entire message and the webpage that
> I specified before running off your mouth like that.
It should be obvious to you that I did read your entire message, since I
quoted it in its entirety. It should also be obvious to you that I did read
the Web page that you specified, since I specifically referred to
additional information that it contained.
Wrong time of the month, huh, Lisa?
> I specifically SAID
> several times now that the K6 is a CHEAP alternative if you really need
> to have MMX, go with the K6. Just be aware that you will lose some of
> the performance that the FPU of an Intel Has.
Yes, so what? Where's the argument?
> Furthermore, it was stated
> on the MMX comparison between a Pentium 200 slightly overclocked versus
> a Pentium 166 with MMX and Pentium 200 MMX that is slightly over clocked
> that the improvement of MMX was slight for the cost. There are several
> benchmark checks not just the Quake Time Demo.
I know. I don't regard Tom's overclocking reports or so-called benchmarks
with overclocking particularly useful, since most of us won't want to risk
frying an expensive processor just to get a *possible* trivial improvement
in performance. Note that Tom destroyed the newer version K6 he had within
four hours of his "testing"--and seems to have learned nothing from the
experience.
Neil
Neil Harrington
> In <3391e...@205.150.32.88> Daryl Souter <dso^uter@^cwave.com> writes:
>
> >I feel Tom's views regarding MMX as a game platform were not justified
> >fairly, as games are just starting to come out with MMX enhanced code.
> >To say that 'MMX is NOT a major improvement for gaming
> >situations' at this stage is like saying DVD is not an improvement in
> >video technology; It's ridiculous! Gamers will more than likely enjoy
> >hundreds of MMX enhanced titles comming very soon in the future, which
> >are sure to run alot better than non MMX versions. I guarantee it!
>
> I must be talking to myself if people only read PART of what I write...
Better do something about that attitude problem, honey, or you sure will be
talking to yourself a lot. Just as with your reply to me, your implication
that he didn't read your post in its entirety seems to be based on nothing
but inattention and crankiness on your part.
> I stated that the judgement was made against programs that do not have
> MMX instruction sets, and until someone bother getting into the MMX wave.
>
> The problem is, the SDKs for Win95 do not feature having MMX information
> and so far, there has not been a major push for MMX. Too many programs
> right now are geared for Non-MMX at this time.
Naturally, since MMX has only been here a few months. You could hardly
expect all the thousands of software titles that don't specifically support
MMX to disappear overnight. But that certainly doesn't support Tom's
sniffing at the usefulness of MMX chips for gaming. Pentium MMX processors
generally give a 10 percent or better increase in performance over non-MMX
Pentiums even *without* software support for MMX, because of their larger
cache, improved pipelining, etc. They are simply better chips all around.
For example, here are some benchmarks from the Intel site showing the
performance increases of the Pentium 200 MMX over the non-MMX Pentium 200.
Note that all these are independent (i.e., non-Intel) benchmarks, and
*none* of them use any MMX code:
SPECint95 26% improvement with MMX Pentium
SPECfp95 11%
CPUmark32 10%
Norton SI32 27%
SYSmark32 16% (Win95)
SYSmark32 17% (WinNT)
3D WinMark 10%
All of that, and reports published in magazines based on real-world apps
which are consistent with those figures, makes MMX Pentiums look pretty
worthwhile to me.
Neil
Larry Chang
Neil Harrington wrote:
> I know. I don't regard Tom's overclocking reports or so-called benchmarks
> with overclocking particularly useful, since most of us won't want to risk
> frying an expensive processor just to get a *possible* trivial improvement
> in performance. Note that Tom destroyed the newer version K6 he had within
> four hours of his "testing"--and seems to have learned nothing from the
> experience.
>
> Neil
Isn't the CPU that Tom destroyed in 4 hours a Cyrix M2?
Larry
Larry Chang
Neil Harrington wrote:
>
> Naturally, since MMX has only been here a few months. You could hardly
> expect all the thousands of software titles that don't specifically support
> MMX to disappear overnight. But that certainly doesn't support Tom's
> sniffing at the usefulness of MMX chips for gaming. Pentium MMX processors
> generally give a 10 percent or better increase in performance over non-MMX
> Pentiums even *without* software support for MMX, because of their larger
> cache, improved pipelining, etc. They are simply better chips all around.
Tom merely states that the MMX technology is of little values nowadays.
He didn't say that the MMX CPUs are not good. That is a very different
point. Read carefully. It seems that even if you do read the
posts/webpages, you make a lot of mistakes (see my other post about Tom
destroying a M2 but not a K6 in 4 hours).
> All of that, and reports published in magazines based on real-world apps
> which are consistent with those figures, makes MMX Pentiums look pretty
> worthwhile to me.
Again, that is the CPU that is worthwhile, but NOT the technology. The
technology has NOTHING to do with the performance gain.
Larry
Nosferatu
"Neil Harrington" <nharr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>All of that, and reports published in magazines based on real-world apps
>which are consistent with those figures, makes MMX Pentiums look pretty
>worthwhile to me.
>Neil
But, those are just benchmarks. Now test a MMX cpu against a non MMX
cpu in a flight sim like Warbirds or A10 Cuba. Interested to know the
results.
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
Paul Carroll
In the preview of Flying Nightmares 2 in Computer Games Stategy Plus
Magazine it states that the flight model in the MMX enhanced version of the
game will be less realistic because the unit can't mix MMX commands with
processing floating point operations. So the 3D card optimised version will
have superior graphics and flight model without using MMX calls.For flight
sims at least it seems that currently there is little benifit in MMX
pentiums apart from the larger L1 cache.
> > Naturally, since MMX has only been here a few months. You could hardly
> > expect all the thousands of software titles that don't specifically
support
> > MMX to disappear overnight. But that certainly doesn't support Tom's
> > sniffing at the usefulness of MMX chips for gaming. Pentium MMX
processors
> > generally give a 10 percent or better increase in performance over
non-MMX
> > Pentiums even *without* software support for MMX, because of their
larger
> > cache, improved pipelining, etc. They are simply better chips all
around.
>
> Tom merely states that the MMX technology is of little values nowadays.
> He didn't say that the MMX CPUs are not good. That is a very different
> point. Read carefully. It seems that even if you do read the
> posts/webpages, you make a lot of mistakes (see my other post about Tom
> destroying a M2 but not a K6 in 4 hours).
>
> > All of that, and reports published in magazines based on real-world
apps
> > which are consistent with those figures, makes MMX Pentiums look pretty
> > worthwhile to me.
>
Jester
Dan Barbato (danba...@speednet.com.au) wrote:
: Like the K-5, the K-6 is not only x86 compatible, but Pentium-code
: compatible.The only problem with the K-6 is that, whilst the
: PentiumMMX/Pentium II can perform 2 MMX ops per cycle, the K-6 can only
: perform 1.
Careful here, you're only telling half the story. Yes, it is true that
the K6 can only do the 1 instruction and the Intels 2 - however, the
Intels take a huge hit when they switch between FPU and MMX (I forget
how many clock cycles exactly, but it's not pretty) ... the AMD, on the
other hand, can switch on the very next cycle (I believe) ... and I'll
note, the difference (I think) is on the order of 40-50X greater - whereas
your part the Intel is only 2X better ... Sooooo, if the code requires
any FPU at all while involved w/ the MMX routines, I have a feeling that
the AMD will still win in the end. And, on the other hand, if software
writers don't use the FPU and do integer calculations instead (to avoid the
poor switching in the INtel chips), the AMD will still win given teir
superior integer speed. :) Either way, I think the AMD is very strong in
the MMX world - however, all the benchmarks I've seen were things written
by Intel (and thus hand tuned to show their strenghts and neglect their
weaknesses) - but I have a feeling that "real world" MMX software may favor
the AMD chips.
Daryl Souter
nos...@bucket.bit wrote:
>
> On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 15:42:23 -0600, Daryl Souter <dso^uter@^cwave.com> wrote:
> >To say that 'MMX is NOT a major improvement for gaming
> >situations' at this stage is like saying DVD is not an improvement in
> >video technology; It's ridiculous! Gamers will more than likely enjoy
>
> an unneeded format change designed primarily to separate fools from
> their money. I certainly won't be buying into it. (And no, I don't
> have a CD player either.)
>
> --
> Bob Alpert | NOTE: The "From" line in this post has been modified |
> | to discourage automated commercial e-mail spammers. |
> | Personal e-mail may be sent to balpert "at" netaxs.com. |
> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail billed at $500.00 / msg.) |
> | http:///www.netaxs.com/~balpert |
Man you must be living in a underground pod or something to come up with
that foolish reply.
Daryl.
Nosferatu
nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
>DVD is NOT an improvement in video technology, like "HDTV" it is
>an unneeded format change designed primarily to separate fools from
>their money. I certainly won't be buying into it. (And no, I don't
>have a CD player either.)
No, your the fool for not seeing what DVD is. Have you seen the
quality? Have you heard the quality? I have. Why have a laser disc
player, cdrom drive, cdaudio player, when they can all be incorporated
into one unit. Think man, think! ;-)
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
Bigs
In article <5n4rsj$i...@chronicle.concentric.net>, nos...@concentric.nets
says...
What has DVD got to do with MMX and toms homepage?
Keith R. Williams
Bigs wrote:
> What has DVD got to do with MMX and toms homepage?
MMX and DVD are in separate universes? Tom doesn't do multimedia?
Now
I'm confused! GMAFB!
----
Keith R. Williams
k...@ibm.net
Keith R. Williams
nos...@bucket.bit wrote:
> DVD is NOT an improvement in video technology, like "HDTV" it is
> an unneeded format change designed primarily to separate fools from
> their money. I certainly won't be buying into it. (And no, I don't
With this attitude, I'm suprised you have a computer! DVD and then
HDTV will
drive this business. The only question is whether PC's will drive
HDTV or
whether the video industry will drive PC's. Pilly G, ceartainly
thinks he
will be moving from the den to the family room. I haven't seen much
innovation
from the TV sector.
>
> As far as I am concerned the so-called "digital revolution" is so much
> hogwash. Its promoters can keep it.
Go back to your butter churning. The digital revolution is here. The
amazing
part is that it relies on analog engineers to make it all work ;-).
Ali Chen
Daryl Souter wrote:
>
> Heh, I respect Tom's views, and find his page very informative, but I do
> think he was way off in left field to prematurely say what he did about
> MMX. In order to fairly benchmark MMX games/apps you certainly need to
> benchmark them with games/apps which are MMX enhanced. MMX combined with
> a hot 3DFX card will surely be the hot combo for any avid gamer - and
> you can count on it!
>
You do not need any MMX if you have a dedicated 3D hardware accelerator,
there is just no job for MMX. All the rendering and texture mappings, all data
streams are handled inside the 3d-processor via its LOCAL and WIDE buses.
As you can guess, this is much more effective, and
makes the host system bus largely free to do other important jobs
like overall game control (which needs to be much better for the majority
of games). So, Tom was absolutely right when making his statement about
MMX.
As many people noticed here, the main performance improvement for P55C
came from larger L1 cache, not MMX yet. But for general public, you cannot
sell the product with only one slightly improved parameter. You would need
an image of something innovative to justify much higher price. The MMX
moniker serves this goal for Intel. That simple.
- Ali
Ali Chen
Neil Harrington wrote:
>
> Naturally, since MMX has only been here a few months. You could hardly
> expect all the thousands of software titles that don't specifically support
> MMX to disappear overnight. But that certainly doesn't support Tom's
> sniffing at the usefulness of MMX chips for gaming. Pentium MMX processors
> generally give a 10 percent or better increase in performance over non-MMX
> Pentiums even *without* software support for MMX, because of their larger
> cache, improved pipelining, etc. They are simply better chips all around.
>
> performance increases of the Pentium 200 MMX over the non-MMX Pentium 200.
> Note that all these are independent (i.e., non-Intel) benchmarks, and
> *none* of them use any MMX code:
>
> SPECint95 26% improvement with MMX Pentium
> SPECfp95 11%
> CPUmark32 10%
> Norton SI32 27%
> SYSmark32 16% (Win95)
> SYSmark32 17% (WinNT)
> 3D WinMark 10%
>
> which are consistent with those figures, makes MMX Pentiums look pretty
> worthwhile to me.
>
makes less than 58 (you can calculate the percentage yourself). So, what is
your point?
IMHO, the MMX is obviously a dead-born since it targets the processor-centric
Intel "platform". And we all know that the software-only 3-D is at least 5
times behind the comfortable 30 fps for games, for more or less realistic
number of triangles. Go 3Dfx and forget the stupid MMX.
- Ali.
Nosferatu
li...@ihug.co.nz (Bigs) wrote:
>What has DVD got to do with MMX and toms homepage?
Lot's, they are both recent arrivals on the market. Good enough?
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
Neil Harrington
Paul Carroll <pcar...@hartingdale.com.au> wrote in article
<01bc7104$1ead1a00$a072...@pcarroll.hartingdale.com.au>...
> In the preview of Flying Nightmares 2 in Computer Games Stategy Plus
> Magazine it states that the flight model in the MMX enhanced version of
the
> game will be less realistic because the unit can't mix MMX commands with
> processing floating point operations. So the 3D card optimised version
will
> have superior graphics and flight model without using MMX calls.For
flight
> sims at least it seems that currently there is little benifit in MMX
> pentiums apart from the larger L1 cache.
Well, the larger cache is probably the most important thing, but I
understand that MMX Pentiums also have improved pipelining and branch
prediction, somewhat similar or related to that used in the Pentium Pro.
I read that about Flying Nightmares 2 also. I agree with you, it doesn't
look as though the MMX instructions themselves will do anything for serious
flight sims because of the floating point problem. In fact I don't expect
to get any great use out of the MMX part. It'll help in some drawing, photo
editing, and other graphics programs, and that's about it.
Neil
Neil Harrington
Nosferatu <nos...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<5n43n7$c...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> "Neil Harrington" <nharr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> >All of that, and reports published in magazines based on real-world apps
> >which are consistent with those figures, makes MMX Pentiums look pretty
> >worthwhile to me.
>
>
>
> But, those are just benchmarks. Now test a MMX cpu against a non MMX
> cpu in a flight sim like Warbirds or A10 Cuba. Interested to know the
> results.
Oh, I agree with you, that's the more important thing. Very difficult to do
and get perfectly valid results, though.
The problem is that hardware A may give better performance than hardware B
with one game, but poorer performance with another. Other factors such as
individual system setup and components may make a big difference too. No
overall benchmark can possibly get around all that. Benchmarks probably
always are, have been, and will be imperfect and somewhat misleading, but
they are still useful so long as their shortcomings are understood. I think
the main thing is to recognize that they are only imperfect gauges of
performance, and especially to not rely on any one of them.
That's why I included *most* of the benchmarks shown at the site. The only
ones I omitted were benchmarks created by Intel, which might be expected to
favor newer Intel products, and those that used MMX code, which obviously
would (and did) show a much greater advantage for MMX Pentiums over non-MMX
Pentiums.
Note that *all* the benchmarks (non-Intel and non-MMX) showed a substantial
advantage for MMX Pentiums, from 10 to 27% better performance at the same
clock speeds. That's hard to ignore.
Neil
Neil Harrington
Larry Chang <lar...@netvigator.comRemove> wrote in article
<339586...@netvigator.comRemove>...
Whoops! Sorry! A Cyrix M2 it was.
Thanks for the correction.
Neil
future
On 4 Jun 1997 18:22:02 GMT, nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 15:42:23 -0600, Daryl Souter <dso^uter@^cwave.com> wrote:
>>To say that 'MMX is NOT a major improvement for gaming
>>situations' at this stage is like saying DVD is not an improvement in
>>video technology; It's ridiculous! Gamers will more than likely enjoy
>
>DVD is NOT an improvement in video technology, like "HDTV" it is
>an unneeded format change designed primarily to separate fools from
>their money. I certainly won't be buying into it. (And no, I don't
>have a CD player either.)
A Neo-luddite, huh... what the heck are you doing on the Net at all...
go back to your cave and lay your head down on a rock.
Daryl Souter
Keith R. Williams wrote:
>
> Bigs wrote:
> > What has DVD got to do with MMX and toms homepage?
>
> Now
> I'm confused! GMAFB!
>
Anyway, back to the topic...
Like alot of threads, this one eventually creeped off topic. I
originally posted that I thought Tom's comments ( see Tom's Hardware
Guide - http://www.sysdoc.pair.com/) regarding MMX were premature. I
mentioned that MMX is relatively new, and there isn't alot of software
that supports it as of yet, but more is soon to come, and come quick!
Tom however feels MMX is NOT an improvement for gamers. I thought this
comment was ridiculous and compared it to that of someone saying that
DVD is not an improvement in video technology. (thus the DVD thread
appers)
Heh, I respect Tom's views, and find his page very informative, but I do
think he was way off in left field to prematurely say what he did about
MMX. In order to fairly benchmark MMX games/apps you certainly need to
benchmark them with games/apps which are MMX enhanced. MMX combined with
a hot 3DFX card will surely be the hot combo for any avid gamer - and
you can count on it!
--
* To reply via email, remove the ^ characters from my email address *
Daryl.
Nosferatu
nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
>I am perfectly happy with existing analog audio and video technology.
>No improvement is needed.
Now I understand. We have a luddite amongst us. ;-)
What the hell you even doing with a computer? Give it up and go buy a
horse and buggy.
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
Nosferatu
see_sig@message_bottom.com (future) wrote:
>A Neo-luddite, huh... what the heck are you doing on the Net at all...
>go back to your cave and lay your head down on a rock.
More like under a rock.
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
Nosferatu
nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
>Not in my house it isn't...
>--
Um..the computer you have now is digital. Unix or no unix, it's still
a digital machine. 000100100001
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
future
On 5 Jun 1997 04:37:53 GMT, nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
>>player, cdrom drive, cdaudio player, when they can all be incorporated
>>into one unit. Think man, think! ;-)
>
>Why have any of them?
Why have ANYTHING? Just live in a cave (as I'm sure you do), and lay
your head down on a rock every night. Oh, I'm sorry, you say you
don't live in a cave? Wasn't it a perfectly adequate place to live?
Gee, I guess bad old progress came along and created houses. Bad, bad
old progress! If only things would stay the same forever!
future
On 5 Jun 1997 04:59:29 GMT, nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 00:31:27 GMT, future <see_sig@message_bottom.com> wrote:
>>A Neo-luddite, huh... what the heck are you doing on the Net at all...
>>go back to your cave and lay your head down on a rock.
>
>I've been here since 1983, creep -- who was changing your diapers
>back then?
I was 19 years old in 1983, and had grown out of diapers about 17
years before that. By the way, your web pages reaches new lows in
closed-minded, fear-of-changed based orientation. Like I said, go
crawl back into your cave.
>I love these techie-weenies that want to shove their "latest and
>greatest" scams down everyone's throats.
I don't care much for the hype either, but you go so overboard with
your reaction that I prefer the hype anyday to your brand of
neo-luddite paranoia.
>Well, sonny,
Moron...
--
If you want to Email me, my address is "future at blarg dot net".
Check out my home page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html.
future
On 5 Jun 1997 04:29:08 GMT, nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
>>HDTV will
>> drive this business. The only question is whether PC's will drive
>
>Doesn't matter to me since I don't need to be a part of "this business."
>HDTV is just another consumer ripoff.
How do you know HDTV is a ripoff? You've never given it a chance.
You're just as bad as the hypsters, but in the opposite direction. If
it were up to the hypsters, we would be changing formats every month.
If it were up to you, we'd NEVER be changing anything.
>> ... The digital revolution is here. The
>
>Not in my house it isn't...
If you're using a computer, it most certainly is. Would you really
rather be using a string with two tin cans tied onto the ends?
MaineCoonCat
nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
> | http://www.netaxs.com/~balpert |
geeze, bob. just checked out your web page. but isn't the web a bit
against the principle you espouse? seems like you should have written
your missive in papyrus (or carved it in stone) and posted it in the
town square for all to see.
amish computing. gotta love it.
-------------------------------------------------
main...@mindspring.com "Big cats are the best!"
-------------------------------------------------
Mathew A. Hennessy
In article <slrn5pcgl0...@unix1.netaxs.com>,
<nos...@bucket.bit> wrote:
>
>Why have any of them?
Umm, Quake? X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter? Why else have a Pentium at
home? The rest of home-related tasks can probably be done comfortably with
a 486.. (as I had Netscape Nav3 + MS Word + Quicken + Solitaire + Eudora
+ WinFax TalkWorks simultaneously running in a 486/66 + 40MB RAM system
without a hitch)
>I don't want or need any one of those things, let alone all of them
>in one. If you want to waste your money on this crap, fine and
>dandy, but I refuse to spend a dime on any of it. (I also refuse
>to buy into MMX, to make this at least a little relevant.)
Then can I ask, which newsgroup are you posting from? Most
readers in the games hierarchy are probably interested in the enhancements
Pentium-class machines ca provide towards their gaming experience.
ObMMX: I will not pay more than a 15% premium for MMX, and currently it's
running at quite a bit more than 15%...
Thanks,
--
- Matt (henn...@thoughtcrime.com)
<em><a href="http://www.cloud9.net/~hennessy">My mildly useful page</a></em>
unix slave.
MAD Mosher
Paul Carroll (pcar...@hartingdale.com.au) wrote:
: Magazine it states that the flight model in the MMX enhanced version of the
: game will be less realistic because the unit can't mix MMX commands with
: processing floating point operations. So the 3D card optimised version will
: have superior graphics and flight model without using MMX calls.For flight
Just curious - does it mention whether the program will detect what
equipment you have and adjust accordingly? Basically, if you've got an MMX
processor and a nice 3D graphics card, will it run the program in
'non-MMX' mode (allowing nice fast floating point) and run your graphics
card into the ground, thus avoiding the 'switching' problem?
Mosh
--
Mail: irpu...@comp.brad.ac.uk (1st) * Secretary of Bradford Uni *
mos...@bigfoot.com (forwarding) * Rock Society *
WWW: http://www.student.comp.brad.ac.uk/%7Eirpurdie
for the Music Pages and the Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Pages
Nosferatu
nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
>I have an older system and still access the Internet with character-based
>tools run from the Unix shell prompt.
Well, I did a perusal of your web site and was amused, but certainly
not impressed. I started out on the net using Unix too so know the
dif. BFD. What twerp would rather type their email address and
anonymous login to an ftp site, then do a cd to whatever directory,
then change to bin format, then type "get twerp.jpg" which is
transferred to your server which you must then do a d-load from which
requires a bunch more typing (unless you have ISDN). It's so much
faster to have the ftp site set up in the settings of a dedicated ftp
program, with login etc. already, then just double click on the
twerp.jpg and voila transfer begins. What a luddite twerp you really
are.
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
Nosferatu
nos...@concentric.net (Nosferatu) wrote:
>nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
>>I have an older system and still access the Internet with character-based
>>tools run from the Unix shell prompt.
Here's some internet protocol for you, considering you think you're
such a veteran I'm amazed that you are using a forged email address.
Internet protocol requires/requests that you use a genuine email
address. Common fact.
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
Daryl Souter
I'm really sorry that my original post regarding Tom's MMX views turned
into this ugly thread - Oh well.
Tom Lake
nos...@bucket.bit wrote in article ...
>On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 22:58:59 GMT, Nosferatu <nos...@concentric.net>
wrote:
>>No, your the fool for not seeing what DVD is. Have you seen the
>
>to push for an unneeded format change that will cost consumers
>millions.
>
>You are the fool for being taken in by marketing hype.
>
>>quality? Have you heard the quality? I have. Why have a laser disc
>
>
>I am perfectly happy with existing analog audio and video technology.
>No improvement is needed.
>
>>into one unit. Think man, think! ;-)
>
>
>in one. If you want to waste your money on this crap, fine and
>dandy, but I refuse to spend a dime on any of it. (I also refuse
>to buy into MMX, to make this at least a little relevant.)
This guy is going to be in for a surprise in a few years when he turns on
his good ol' analog TV and can't get anything because all the cable
companies and TV stations have gone digital-only. Remember what people
said about vinyl LPs? "Don't worry about CDs, vinyl will be around for
years while the industry and consumers make the transition." How long did
it take? A year? Two? Try finding new LPs for sale now. It's tough!
Tom Lake
Keith R. Williams
Nosferatu wrote:
>
> nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
>
> >I am perfectly happy with existing analog audio and video technology.
> >No improvement is needed.
>
> What the hell you even doing with a computer? Give it up and go buy a
> horse and buggy.
I was caught too. It's gotta be a troll. No one that can dial a
phone
(much less an ISP) is this backwards. Ok, we lose!
Troll - 1
Inet - 0
Keith R. Williams
nos...@bucket.bit wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 23:40:07 -0400, Keith R. Williams <k...@ibm.net> wrote:
> > With this attitude, I'm suprised you have a computer! DVD and then
>
> tools run from the Unix shell prompt.
>
> > drive this business. The only question is whether PC's will drive
>
> Doesn't matter to me since I don't need to be a part of "this business."
> HDTV is just another consumer ripoff.
Stay behind if you must. I prefer a profitable life full of
interesting toys to
keep my mind occupied.
>
> > ... The digital revolution is here. The
>
> Not in my house it isn't...
Now wait a minute! You are saying that you posted this via an analog
computer? I
thought I was one of the last to program vacuum-tubed, servo-spinning,
monsters ;-).
You can deny the presence of technology all you want, but you cannot
change it
any more than the radio mucks could when television was born. Learn
to live with
technology or live on a mountain top, though that would be a good
place for an
antenna.
Keith R. Williams
Daryl Souter wrote:
> I'm really sorry that my original post regarding Tom's MMX views turned
> into this ugly thread - Oh well.
Ugly thread? Why is a disagreement ugly? I was always taught that an
argument was healthy as long as you have facts to back up your point.
If you
don't it *is* possible to learn something.
"He don't know ugly thread - do he???" - Bugs B.
Keith R. Williams
MaineCoonCat wrote:
>
> amish computing. gotta love it.
Once in a month I may see a nail hit so squarely. My golden nail for
June
goes to you!
----
Keith R. Williams
k...@ibm.net
P.S. is he still using that used PDP-8E? I had one and could read
everything
but JPEGs from the blinkin' lights ;-). We used to flip for coffee on
the
console lights of a 370-155. Boy, those were the days! ;-).
john...@velocity.net
> No, your the fool for not seeing what DVD is. Have you seen the
> into one unit. Think man, think! ;-)
however is an entirely different story. DVD will not replace
laserdiscs...it is actually planned to replace the VHS tape market.
DVD's are smaller and can hold a great deal of audio (for a film),
including multiple tracks. Laserdiscs can do the same. The major
drawbacks of DVD video are 2 fold. First, the compression used does not
allow a search feature unlike laserdiscs. Second, DVD has horrible
video quality compared to a laserdisc. This is b/c DVD does not
recreate an entire frame of video...it only "updates" the pixels that
changed from the previous frame. This causes a distortion or haze
around images. A very expensive player will reduce this haze...but it's
the nature of the beast.
Brian
john...@velocity.net
Neil Harrington
Larry Chang <lar...@netvigator.comRemove> wrote in article
> Tom merely states that the MMX technology is of little values nowadays.
> He didn't say that the MMX CPUs are not good. That is a very different
> point. Read carefully.
I was replying to Lisa who was replying to Daryl quoting Lisa's earlier
comment about what Tom said. (Is this getting complicated enough, or what?)
What she said in the first place, referring to Tom's remarks, was:
>>>
He states that MMX is NOT a major
improvement for gaming situations, since you need programs that
specifically
use the MMX instructionset.
<<<
I am simply pointing out that even if you *forget all about* the MMX
instruction set, the MMX Pentiums still give a substantial performance
increase over non-MMX Pentiums because of their other enhancements.
> It seems that even if you do read the
> posts/webpages, you make a lot of mistakes (see my other post about Tom
> destroying a M2 but not a K6 in 4 hours).
I count that as one mistake. It was a slip which I promptly apologized for
when you pointed it out to me. If I ever do make "a lot of mistakes" I hope
you will point out every single one of them to me.
> > All of that, and reports published in magazines based on real-world
apps
> > which are consistent with those figures, makes MMX Pentiums look pretty
> > worthwhile to me.
>
> Again, that is the CPU that is worthwhile, but NOT the technology. The
> technology has NOTHING to do with the performance gain.
The MMX technology has nothing to do with performance gain in the
benchmarks I listed. Yes. I said that. I specifically selected those
particular benchmarks *because* they eliminated any possible gain due to
MMX technology. I said that too. Remember?
Neil
Starfire
> What has DVD got to do with MMX and toms homepage?
That's the problem with long threads like this..
--
Starfire
yan...@cyberway.com.sg
http://www.cyberway.com.sg/~yangsc
Member of the SXvTC
Alliance's Talons - Gold Squadron
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~twinion/XvT/XvTHome.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neil Harrington
Keith R. Williams <k...@ibm.net> wrote in article <339635...@ibm.net>...
> nos...@bucket.bit wrote:
> > As far as I am concerned the so-called "digital revolution" is so much
> > hogwash. Its promoters can keep it.
>
> Go back to your butter churning.
<chuckle>
The fascinating thing to me about these anti-technology types is that
they're only against the *newest* technology, whatever that is at the time.
Once it's been around 20 years, then it's okay.
He says he doesn't own and won't own even a CD player, let alone HDTV or
DVD. That stuff is all "hogwash." But of course in the 1970s he'd have said
exactly the same thing about personal computers and the Internet (or
ARPAnet, as I believe it was called then). In the 1950s, television would
have been "hogwash"; in the 1930s, radio; and in earlier years,
automobiles, telephones, electric power--all "hogwash," all just "unneeded"
stuff "designed primarily to separate fools from their money," as he puts
it.
Neil
Nosferatu
Daryl Souter <dso^uter@^cwave.com> wrote:
>I'm really sorry that my original post regarding Tom's MMX views turned
>into this ugly thread - Oh well.
Don't feel bad. I consider this fun. I know...need to get out more
often. ;-)
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
Larry Chang
Neil Harrington wrote:
>
> Larry Chang <lar...@netvigator.comRemove> wrote in article
> <339588...@netvigator.comRemove>...
>
> benchmarks I listed. Yes. I said that. I specifically selected those
> particular benchmarks *because* they eliminated any possible gain due to
> MMX technology. I said that too. Remember?
>
> Neil
Oh well, lets calm down. I must admit that I didn't read your post
careful enough then. Anyway, our point is: the MMX technology has
little to do with gaming now, but the Pentium MMX do have performance
gain over non MMX. The performance gain, however, is not due to the MMX
technology, but other improvements on the CPU.
Larry
Nosferatu
"Keith R. Williams" <k...@ibm.net> wrote:
> I was caught too. It's gotta be a troll. No one that can dial a
>phone
> (much less an ISP) is this backwards. Ok, we lose!
> Troll - 1
> Inet - 0
Nope, it's not a troll. Go read his web page and you will see this guy
is serious. Unless his web page is part of the troll too. But, I don't
think someone would go to that much trouble to set up a troll. Would
they?
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
Nosferatu
john...@velocity.net wrote:
> Laserdiscs can do the same. The major
>drawbacks of DVD video are 2 fold. First, the compression used does not
>allow a search feature unlike laserdiscs. Second, DVD has horrible
>video quality compared to a laserdisc. This is b/c DVD does not
>recreate an entire frame of video...it only "updates" the pixels that
>changed from the previous frame. This causes a distortion or haze
>around images. A very expensive player will reduce this haze...but it's
>the nature of the beast.
>Brian
>john...@velocity.net
Well, Siskel and Ebert disagree with you. They compared LD to DVD on a
recent show. They even showed it side by side. The DVD was LD's equal
in picture quality. I wasn't wrong about cd audio and I doubt I'm
wrong about DVD either. It is the future format after soem tweeking it
will be a godsend.
--
Nos
Vancouver, Canada
MaineCoonCat
john...@velocity.net wrote:
>DVD is excellent for computer and maybe even audio applications. Video
>however is an entirely different story. DVD will not replace
>laserdiscs...it is actually planned to replace the VHS tape market.
>The major
>drawbacks of DVD video are 2 fold. First, the compression used does not
>allow a search feature unlike laserdiscs. Second, DVD has horrible
>video quality compared to a laserdisc.
actually, you're missing a huge drawback... dvd isn't recordable. unlike
many, i know how to program my vcr. :)
Neil Harrington
Keith R. Williams <k...@ibm.net> wrote in article <339782...@ibm.net>...
> I was caught too. It's gotta be a troll. No one that can dial a
> phone
> (much less an ISP) is this backwards. Ok, we lose!
>
> Troll - 1
> Inet - 0
Dang! You must be right. Caught me too.
Neil
Keith R. Williams
MaineCoonCat wrote:
> actually, you're missing a huge drawback... dvd isn't recordable. unlike
> many, i know how to program my vcr. :)
1 - DVD doen't need to be recordable in this market. There is a huge
market in
movie sales.
2 - DVD is recordable, which scares the sewer-stuff out of the
software providers.
3 - because of 2 and 1 DVD is on hold until the parties come to an
understanding.
It's the DAT/CD problem in spades.
Darren Stolarchuk
[snip]
>DVD is excellent for computer and maybe even audio applications. Video
>however is an entirely different story. DVD will not replace
>laserdiscs...it is actually planned to replace the VHS tape market.
>DVD's are smaller and can hold a great deal of audio (for a film),
>including multiple tracks. Laserdiscs can do the same. The major
>drawbacks of DVD video are 2 fold. First, the compression used does not
>allow a search feature unlike laserdiscs. Second, DVD has horrible
>video quality compared to a laserdisc. This is b/c DVD does not
>recreate an entire frame of video...it only "updates" the pixels that
>changed from the previous frame. This causes a distortion or haze
>around images. A very expensive player will reduce this haze...but it's
>the nature of the beast.
>Brian
>john...@velocity.net
Your first point is correct, DVD is not really a replacement for Laser disks its
a replacement for VHS Tape. However, for the time being you cannot record your
own DVD disks. So it will not compete with VHS initially. After all a major
reason for having a VHS tape player is to tape your favorite TV shows or
sporting events.
Your second point about Pixilation (HAZE) is not entirely true since DVD uses
MPEG-2 which does a pretty good job of getting rid of Pixilation. I have seen a
DVD player in a local store and the effect is minimal.
Because the production of DVD will be initially driven by the PC, You will see
prices of the stand alone DVD players fall dramatically. And considering the
physical size of the media 12cm VS. 30cm, production run costs of movies will be
much lower.
I think the increase in sound and video quality will convince people to buy a
DVD player for renting or purchasing movies. Mean while they will keep there old
VHS tape machines for taping TV shows or for the odd movie that cannot be found
on DVD. So where does that leave Laser Disks? It is like the VHS vs. BETA
debates many years ago. Its not technical superiority than wins the race, its
market penetration. Since Laser disks account for only a small portion of the
market now. A low cost competitor will wipe it out.
Sorry to break the news to you.
Later
Darren
Darren
E-Mail: Dar...@netcom.ca
Scott Willsey
Neil Harrington <nharr...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<01bc70e9$97342880$d7db0a26@elnnharrington>...
> Lisa Richardson <pr...@sanitarium.dhp.com> wrote in article
> <5mtqk0$4...@sanitarium.dhp.com>...
> >
> > I must be talking to myself if people only read PART of what I write...
>
> Better do something about that attitude problem, honey, or you sure will
be
> talking to yourself a lot. Just as with your reply to me, your
implication
> that he didn't read your post in its entirety seems to be based on
nothing
> but inattention and crankiness on your part.
>
"Honey"??? And you think SHE will be talking to herself alot? My guess is
you must be doing lots of things by yourself. And you say she has an
attitude problem. Wow.
Scott
--
~~~~~~~miutnepatteleportdotcom~~~~~~~
Please edit the return address to
reply be email. Thanks.
Scott Willsey
Nosferatu <nos...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<5n5avi$g...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> li...@ihug.co.nz (Bigs) wrote:
>
>
>
> >What has DVD got to do with MMX and toms homepage?
>
> Lot's, they are both recent arrivals on the market. Good enough?
>
For some people, apparently.
Scott Willsey
nos...@bucket.bit wrote in article
<slrn5pchtg...@unix1.netaxs.com>...
> On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 00:31:27 GMT, future <see_sig@message_bottom.com>
wrote:
> >A Neo-luddite, huh... what the heck are you doing on the Net at all...
> >go back to your cave and lay your head down on a rock.
>
> I've been here since 1983, creep -- who was changing your diapers
> back then?
>
> I love these techie-weenies that want to shove their "latest and
> greatest" scams down everyone's throats. Well, sonny, you can
> take your MMX, DVD, and HDTV and shove them all where the sun
> doesn't shine...
>
Gee, Bob, your carefully reasoned response makes me wonder what on earth
I'm doing with ANY technology in my house at all. That line about the
diapers... witty! Did you think that up, or do you have a ghostwriter? By
the way, who's changing your Depends (tm) these days?
You may not see the need for certain pieces of technology. That's fine.
You are a lucky man if you are happy with what you have. You will have
spent less money on technology than a lot of people. But acting like
people are fools or immoral if they do like and buy new technology is a
little immature.
Granted, you have the right to your opinions and you shouldn't be flamed
for them. But the way you presented them left you begging for it. I'm
sure you spend YOUR money on something that others would call foolish. Do
you drink? Smoke? Do you buy pizza with extra anchovies? Should I call
you a fool for spending your money on beer, cigarettes, or anchovies if you
do? They aren't things I would do, that's for sure. Does that make people
who do fools? I would guess you would say so, if those aren't things you
spend your money on. Hey, whatever. Just don't be surprised when people
tell you to quit shoving YOUR views down their throats. You know how much
you hate it when people shove things down other people's throats. It
apparently makes you want to shove things elsewhere for them. Whatever
flips your cookie...
Scott Willsey
Daryl Souter <dso^uter@^cwave.com> wrote in article
<33973...@205.150.32.88>...
>
>
> I'm really sorry that my original post regarding Tom's MMX views turned
> into this ugly thread - Oh well.
>
>
No, don't be. It's really amusing. Some guy with a forged email address
is telling everyone that he hates technology, we are all fools listening to
technology weenies if we buy anything newer than his ancient unix terminal
with a 1200 baud modem (?? My editorial guessing) attached to it, and
claims that the digital revolution is NOT happening in his house, although
he says this after posting via some form of computer to the internet
itself. Ya gotta love it. Thanks!! :)
Scott Willsey
nos...@bucket.bit wrote in article
<slrn5pcg4j...@unix1.netaxs.com>...
> On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 23:40:07 -0400, Keith R. Williams <k...@ibm.net>
wrote:
>
> > ... The digital revolution is here. The
>
> Not in my house it isn't...
>
Wait, I'm confused... so now you're saying you DON'T access the net,
although it SEEMS like you do??? Where do you draw the line as to what's
"acceptable" technology and what's not??
I think you are suffering an identity crisis. You want to be part of the
fun in some way, but you think enjoying more technology than bare bones,
unix terminal-based internet access would be selling out somehow. In my
opinion, if the digital revolution really was NOT in your house, you
wouldn't be on the net at all. And since you like strong opinions (that's
how you present yours), let me tell you flat out: YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
AND A REALLY CRANKY ONE AT THAT.
There. There's some low-tech shouting for you.
Mitchell Weitz
nos...@bucket.bit () wrote:
>It's obvious that you have so bought into today's hype there is
>no basis for rational discussion. However, you are free to waste
>your money on this garbage to the extent you deem suitable. Just
>don't expect everyone to buy into such crapola.
>
>State of the art is in the eye of the beholder. I don't live in a cave
>but my home has not changed much since the 1970s or early 1980s. Rotary
>dial phones. LPs. 8-track tapes. Vacuum tube console B&W TV set. Betamax
>VCR. Dumb terminal for connection to the internet.
So you're saying that the difference between a color TV and a B&W TV
merely "hype"? And that 8-track tapes are really as good as cassettes
or CDs and that only "hype" makes people believe otherwise?
Interesting definition of "hype"!
********************
Mitchell Weitz
mwe...@quicklink.com
********************