486 vs Pentium
Brian Haight
Just wanted to throw my two cents into the mine's bigger/faster
than your's debates.
I am currently running Longbow Gold on a 486 DX4/120 with an old
Trident tvga 8900 video card. With all graphics options turned ON/Max,
it looks and runs great (Congrats to EA/Janes/Origin Skunkworks/Andy
Hollis). This is in Dos mode. Couldn't tell you what the frame rate
is, because, frankly, I don't have a clue how to measure frame rate.
However, it is very smooth and very playable. I am also able to run
other games such as Quake, Warcraft2, Z, Moo2, Civ2 etc.
My questions are these:
1) Why should I even consider upgrading to Pentium?
2) Should I even consider Pentium an "upgrade"?
3) What can a Pentium P120 do that my 486 DX4/120 can't, if anything?
I guess my point is this: For all fellow 486 owners out there,
even though the game may say Pentium required on the box, if you've
got the speed, you can run it.
Have a good one.
Brian Haight
David Pipes
Brian Haight wrote:
>
> Just wanted to throw my two cents into the mine's bigger/faster
> than your's debates.
>
> I am currently running Longbow Gold on a 486 DX4/120 with an old
> Trident tvga 8900 video card. With all graphics options turned ON/Max,
> it looks and runs great (Congrats to EA/Janes/Origin Skunkworks/Andy
> Hollis). This is in Dos mode. Couldn't tell you what the frame rate
> is, because, frankly, I don't have a clue how to measure frame rate.
> However, it is very smooth and very playable. I am also able to run
> other games such as Quake, Warcraft2, Z, Moo2, Civ2 etc.
>
> My questions are these:
>
> 1) Why should I even consider upgrading to Pentium?
Unless you are addicted to high-end games, or run into a game which
*requires* the Pentium command set, you don't need to. But remember -
just because your machine is top of the 486 heap, doesn't mean that
game speeds plateaued, or that it is magically capable of even P-90
performance at all applications. Your silicon is now undeniably
previous generation - you want to play with the new stuff, you need
the new toys. If you don't, you're fine.
> 2) Should I even consider Pentium an "upgrade"?
Yes, absolutely. Your 486 120, if pushed, might sometimes do
as well as a P-90. A P-120 will be noticeably faster than that,
and they are very cheap these days. If you saved money before by
going 486-120, you can now upgrade cheaply to Pentium.
> 3) What can a Pentium P120 do that my 486 DX4/120 can't, if anything?
It will allow faster graphics cards, which can radically speed up
your display. It will run Pentium opcodes that will not run on a
486. And it will indeed run faster than the 486-120.
> I guess my point is this: For all fellow 486 owners out there,
> even though the game may say Pentium required on the box, if you've
> got the speed, you can run it.
Unless you want smooth, or even usably jerky graphics on recent
software - flight sims come to mind. Or if it uses the Pentium
command set.
> Have a good one.
>
> Brian Haight
David Pipes
Drake Burwash
On Fri, 02 May 1997 19:23:09 GMT, bha...@odyssey.on.ca (Brian Haight)
wrote:
> Just wanted to throw my two cents into the mine's bigger/faster
>than your's debates.
>
> I am currently running Longbow Gold on a 486 DX4/120 with an old
>Trident tvga 8900 video card. With all graphics options turned ON/Max,
>it looks and runs great (Congrats to EA/Janes/Origin Skunkworks/Andy
>Hollis). This is in Dos mode. Couldn't tell you what the frame rate
>is, because, frankly, I don't have a clue how to measure frame rate.
>However, it is very smooth and very playable. I am also able to run
>other games such as Quake, Warcraft2, Z, Moo2, Civ2 etc.
>
> My questions are these:
>
>1) Why should I even consider upgrading to Pentium?
>
>2) Should I even consider Pentium an "upgrade"?
>
>3) What can a Pentium P120 do that my 486 DX4/120 can't, if anything?
>
> I guess my point is this: For all fellow 486 owners out there,
>even though the game may say Pentium required on the box, if you've
>got the speed, you can run it.
>
>
>Have a good one.
>
> Brian Haight
>
I am running 486 DX4/100. I have no real huge problems. I can seem to
get away with just about everything. I can run Xwing vs Tie (to my
amazement) I turn down the effects and such. It is still a little
jerky. I hope to upgrade soon.
Anyone know what a P200 upgrade would cost? Ballpark guesses accepted.
=============
Drake Burwash
http://icewall.vianet.on.ca/pages/drake
Home of The James Bond Girls
Sasha
Using Norton utilities I discovered that my Pentium 90 is 50% faster
than a 486DX4/100. Using simple arithmetic leads me to conclude that a
Pentium 120 will be at least 60% faster than your 486DX4/120. A
significant performance increase, don't you think?
Sasha
Collis Jeppesen
> I am running 486 DX4/100. I have no real huge problems. I can seem to
> get away with just about everything. I can run Xwing vs Tie (to my
> amazement) I turn down the effects and such. It is still a little
> jerky. I hope to upgrade soon.
>
> Anyone know what a P200 upgrade would cost? Ballpark guesses accepted.
I figure for a P-200 w/mmx tech will run around $800 and then another
couple hundred for the pci 3d video card w/2 meg memory.
Waiting for my next promotion before I can afford it (wife gets a new car
this year instead).
JD
On Sat, 03 May 1997 23:29:45 -0400, Sasha <ss...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Using Norton utilities I discovered that my Pentium 90 is 50% faster
>than a 486DX4/100. Using simple arithmetic leads me to conclude that a
>Pentium 120 will be at least 60% faster than your 486DX4/120. A
>significant performance increase, don't you think?
Those numbers don't translate directly into real world game
performance. Maybe if you're sorting a 100,000 record database or
something...
You're better off using your favorite games in they have built in
frame counters <Quake, FS5, Jane's "Gold" products, etc.>, or failing
that, a reliable graphics oriented benchmark like Dial's SVGA Bench.
Anyway, you would not want to upgrade to a P120 in any case. The 120
runs on a 60mhz bus. If you just gotta stay low end, spend a few extra
bucks and get a 133 which runs on a 66mhz bus.
Regards, JD
j...@ct1.nai.net
kb...@delphi.com
Nan Wang
Brian Haight <bha...@odyssey.on.ca> wrote:
> I am currently running Longbow Gold on a 486 DX4/120 with an old
> Trident tvga 8900 video card. With all graphics options turned ON/Max,
> it looks and runs great (Congrats to EA/Janes/Origin Skunkworks/Andy
> Hollis). This is in Dos mode. Couldn't tell you what the frame rate
> is, because, frankly, I don't have a clue how to measure frame rate.
> However, it is very smooth and very playable. I am also able to run
> other games such as Quake, Warcraft2, Z, Moo2, Civ2 etc.
Well, except Quake, the others don't require a lot of computing power.
> 1) Why should I even consider upgrading to Pentium?
You shouldn't. Classic Pentiums are becoming obsolete very quickly.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if they are already considered yesterday's
technology.
> 2) Should I even consider Pentium an "upgrade"?
Yes, but not a worthy one. Don't upgrade unless you have the $$$ for at
least a PPro 200.
> 3) What can a Pentium P120 do that my 486 DX4/120 can't, if anything?
Run all of your application faster, Quake in particular (optimized for
the Pentium).
Brad Fermanich
runs on a 30 bus and a 133 runs at 33
GUI TERENCE ANG
> Just wanted to throw my two cents into the mine's bigger/faster
>than your's debates.
>
>Trident tvga 8900 video card. With all graphics options turned ON/Max,
>it looks and runs great (Congrats to EA/Janes/Origin Skunkworks/Andy
>Hollis). This is in Dos mode. Couldn't tell you what the frame rate
>is, because, frankly, I don't have a clue how to measure frame rate.
>However, it is very smooth and very playable. I am also able to run
>other games such as Quake, Warcraft2, Z, Moo2, Civ2 etc.
>
>
>1) Why should I even consider upgrading to Pentium?
>
>
>
>even though the game may say Pentium required on the box, if you've
>got the speed, you can run it.
>
>
>Have a good one.
>
> Brian Haight
running something like Mech2:Mercs as SVGA w/ all options turned on, I'm
sure you'll experience some kind of slowdown. One merely needs the v1.05
patch and to type CTRL+ALT+SHIFT frames to see the running framerate
counter, which proves once and for all that yes, a Pentium as actually
faster than a 486!
Of course, you don't need a Pentium to play the game, you can always turn
down the res. But I think what the design team was aiming for was
something that would look better than the original mechwarrior.
TAG
Brad Fermanich
Nan Wang wrote:
> least a PPro 200.
Pentium Pro runs slower than Pentium unless you are running NT
JD
>> Anyway, you would not want to upgrade to a P120 in any case. The 120
>> runs on a 60mhz bus. If you just gotta stay low end, spend a few extra
>> bucks and get a 133 which runs on a 66mhz bus.
>>
>> Regards, JD
>> j...@ct1.nai.net
>> kb...@delphi.com
>
>An earlier letter here...don't remember the author....stated that a 120
>runs on a 30 bus and a 133 runs at 33
That's the PCI bus. The CPU i/o for current Intel chips runs at 50 mhz
<P75>, 60 mhz <P60, P90, P120, P150> or 66mhz <P66, P100, P133, P166,
P200, etc.>. The PCI bus runs at half the main bus speed.
Regards, JD
j...@ct1.nai.net
kb...@delphi.com
Paul Campbell
> On Fri, 02 May 1997 19:23:09 GMT, bha...@odyssey.on.ca (Brian Haight)
> wrote:
>
> > Just wanted to throw my two cents into the mine's bigger/faster
> >than your's debates.
> >
> > I am currently running Longbow Gold on a 486 DX4/120 with an old
> >Trident tvga 8900 video card. With all graphics options turned ON/Max,
> >it looks and runs great (Congrats to EA/Janes/Origin Skunkworks/Andy
> >Hollis). This is in Dos mode. Couldn't tell you what the frame rate
> >is, because, frankly, I don't have a clue how to measure frame rate.
> >However, it is very smooth and very playable. I am also able to run
> >other games such as Quake, Warcraft2, Z, Moo2, Civ2 etc.
> >
> > My questions are these:
> >
> >1) Why should I even consider upgrading to Pentium?
> >
> >
Run nearly twice as fast basically. New bus/cache and internal
architecture means that
a pentium clock cycle is worth about 1.8 486 clock cycles in terms of
processing power.
A P120 system will piss all over your 486dx4 on any caculation intensive
task such as
3D graphics.
Paul C.
Nan Wang
Brad Fermanich <BRF@nospam_rworld.com> wrote:
> Nan Wang wrote:
> >
> > Brian Haight <bha...@odyssey.on.ca> wrote:
> >
> > least a PPro 200.
> Pentium Pro runs slower than Pentium unless you are running NT
I'd like to know where did you get that information. PPro is faster in DOS,
NT, sometimes Win95 (with different benchmarks different processor comes out
ahead, we can call it even).
For the lack of a better benchmark, Winquake (in win95) does 23.4 on a
PPro 200, 16 on P200MMX.
If you are more interested I can send you my source, and it will provide you
with more info on system configuration etc.
Brad Fermanich
My source is a Win95 Seminar...Sponsored by Microsoft.
Grifman
Paul Campbell <remove_this_bit!Paul_Cam...@lucent.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 May 1997 19:23:09 GMT, bha...@odyssey.on.ca (Brian Haight)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Just wanted to throw my two cents into the mine's bigger/faster
>> >than your's debates.
>> >
>> > I am currently running Longbow Gold on a 486 DX4/120 with an old
>> >Trident tvga 8900 video card. With all graphics options turned ON/Max,
>> >it looks and runs great (Congrats to EA/Janes/Origin Skunkworks/Andy
>> >Hollis). This is in Dos mode. Couldn't tell you what the frame rate
>> >is, because, frankly, I don't have a clue how to measure frame rate.
>> >However, it is very smooth and very playable. I am also able to run
>> >other games such as Quake, Warcraft2, Z, Moo2, Civ2 etc.
>> >
>> > My questions are these:
>> >
>> >1) Why should I even consider upgrading to Pentium?
>> >
>> >2) Should I even consider Pentium an "upgrade"?
>> >
>> >3) What can a Pentium P120 do that my 486 DX4/120 can't, if anything?
>Run nearly twice as fast basically. New bus/cache and internal
>architecture means that
>a pentium clock cycle is worth about 1.8 486 clock cycles in terms of
>processing power.
>A P120 system will piss all over your 486dx4 on any caculation intensive
>task such as
>3D graphics.
>Paul C.
Agreed, but all I play are strategy games. I had a 486/50, then I
upgraded it with an AMD585-133 for $130 (last year, cheaper now) and
added 8 meg of ram ($60 last year). I couldn't believe how much
faster Steel Panthers ran! I figure that this will last me through
the next year at least, allowing me to skip the Pentiums and jump
straight to whatever is coming next (Pentium II's?). So far I have
had no problem with any strategy game in the last year, and I don't
anticipate any in the next year (keeping fingers crossed). Of course,
YMMV.
Regards,
Grifman
Bill Huffman
> Just wanted to throw my two cents into the mine's bigger/faster
>than your's debates.
>
.... snip ....
Well my reading of this thread is that the issue is "mine is older
and not a whole lot slower". My system is one of the very early
first out VLB systems. A barn burner 486 66MHz. I've upgraded
the monitor, the video board, the I/O board, and the disk.
Man is it fast. I can even play Wing Commander 3 (haven't tried 4)
and MOO2. On MOO2 I only have to wait a few seconds to change screens.
If anyone is interested in trading my barn burner for a Pentium
or even a Pentium Pro then, I might be willing to consider it.
If you sweetened the pot of course. :-)
Actually the original poster made what I thought was a good point.
The suggested system on the box is just a generic guideline at
best. For example, I'm sure my system is faster than most
486 66MHz systems out there. If the system can do the job
you need done then, it's a fine system. I still wish I had
a faster one though. :-(
Nan Wang
Brad Fermanich <Brad@Im_not_here.com> wrote:
> My source is a Win95 Seminar...Sponsored by Microsoft.
Alright...When was the seminar held? They might have missed a lot of the
"latest and greatest" stuff, or they simply might be bullshiting, who knows.
Anyway, you could get a lot of benchmark at these two places:
http://www.x86.org/digest/May97/Feature01.html
http://sysdoc.pair.com/pentiumII.html
As well as a bunch of magazines like PC Computing but I don't own them so
can't tell you exactly which edition.
Brad Fermanich
Nan Wang wrote:
>
> Brad Fermanich <Brad@Im_not_here.com> wrote:
>
> > My source is a Win95 Seminar...Sponsored by Microsoft.
>
> Alright...When was the seminar held? They might have missed a lot of the
> "latest and greatest" stuff, or they simply might be bullshiting, who knows.
>
that might not have been true. For instance they said you could use a
Win95 Upgrade CD to load Win95 on a new computer, without license
problems, by putting a single file on its empty home directory. I dont
remember what the name was, but it had a .386 extension. We tried it
once and it didnt work.
Nan Wang
> > My source is a Win95 Seminar...Sponsored by Microsoft.
> Alright...When was the seminar held? They might have missed a lot of the
> "latest and greatest" stuff, or they simply might be bullshiting, who knows.
And of course, I, and my sources could be wrong :-)
Tom Ritz
In article <5kooj6$l...@chronicle.concentric.net>, sg...@pop3.concentric.net
says...
>
>Paul Campbell <remove_this_bit!Paul_Cam...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 02 May 1997 19:23:09 GMT, bha...@odyssey.on.ca (Brian Haight)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Just wanted to throw my two cents into the mine's bigger/faster
>>> >than your's debates.
>>> >
Others will follow soon.
col...@mops.wl.com
In article <5krja9$f5i$1...@news3.microserve.net>,
tr...@ezonline.com (Tom Ritz) wrote:
>
> In article <5kooj6$l...@chronicle.concentric.net>, sg...@pop3.concentric.net
> says...
> >
> >Paul Campbell <remove_this_bit!Paul_Cam...@lucent.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> On Fri, 02 May 1997 19:23:09 GMT, bha...@odyssey.on.ca (Brian Haight)
> >>> wrote:
>snip<
> >Agreed, but all I play are strategy games. I had a 486/50, then I
> >upgraded it with an AMD585-133 for $130 (last year, cheaper now) and
> >added 8 meg of ram ($60 last year). I couldn't believe how much
> >faster Steel Panthers ran! I figure that this will last me through
> >the next year at least, allowing me to skip the Pentiums and jump
> >straight to whatever is coming next (Pentium II's?). So far I have
> >had no problem with any strategy game in the last year, and I don't
> >anticipate any in the next year (keeping fingers crossed). Of course,
> >YMMV.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Grifman
> >
> X-wing vs Tie fighter really does need a p120 or faster for multi player.
> Others will follow soon.
One thing to watch out for are strategy games which incorporate a lot of
processor-intensive functions, like certain graphics functions in MOO2.
I ran it on a dx2/66, and everything was pretty good except for eternal
waits for tractor beams, etc., to finish cycling. Even strategy games
have to incorporate some level of animation sophistication to keep up
with the Joneses, and your processor will be left in the dust eventually.
As far as Pentium II's go, wait until they have the bugs worked out, the
proper motherboard marketed, and the price drops a little. :-)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Grifman
col...@mops.wl.com wrote:
>>snip<
Well that last statement is a truism if I ever heard one! My point is
that so far there is no strategy game that has come out so far that
exceeds the capability of my computer, and I don't anticipate that
there will be anytime soon. With a relatively cheap upgrade I was
able to skip an entire generation of computers (Pentiums) and will
jump up to the next thing, whatever that turns out to be.
>As far as Pentium II's go, wait until they have the bugs worked out, the
>proper motherboard marketed, and the price drops a little. :-)
That is my plan. And I have saved prolly at least $2,000 by skipping
an entire generation of PC's.
Grifman
Grifman
tr...@ezonline.com (Tom Ritz) wrote:
>In article <5kooj6$l...@chronicle.concentric.net>, sg...@pop3.concentric.net
>says...
>>
>>Paul Campbell <remove_this_bit!Paul_Cam...@lucent.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Fri, 02 May 1997 19:23:09 GMT, bha...@odyssey.on.ca (Brian Haight)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Just wanted to throw my two cents into the mine's bigger/faster
>>>> >than your's debates.
>>>> >
>>>> > I am currently running Longbow Gold on a 486 DX4/120 with an old
>>>> >Trident tvga 8900 video card. With all graphics options turned ON/Max,
>>>> >it looks and runs great (Congrats to EA/Janes/Origin Skunkworks/Andy
>>>> >Hollis). This is in Dos mode. Couldn't tell you what the frame rate
>>>> >is, because, frankly, I don't have a clue how to measure frame rate.
>>>> >However, it is very smooth and very playable. I am also able to run
>>>> >other games such as Quake, Warcraft2, Z, Moo2, Civ2 etc.
>>>> >
>>>> > My questions are these:
>>>> >
>>>> >1) Why should I even consider upgrading to Pentium?
>>>> >
>>>> >2) Should I even consider Pentium an "upgrade"?
>>>> >
>>>> >3) What can a Pentium P120 do that my 486 DX4/120 can't, if anything?
>>
>>>Run nearly twice as fast basically. New bus/cache and internal
>>>architecture means that
>>>a pentium clock cycle is worth about 1.8 486 clock cycles in terms of
>>>processing power.
>>>A P120 system will piss all over your 486dx4 on any caculation intensive
>>>task such as
>>>3D graphics.
>>
>>>Paul C.
>>
>>
>>Agreed, but all I play are strategy games. I had a 486/50, then I
>>upgraded it with an AMD585-133 for $130 (last year, cheaper now) and
>>added 8 meg of ram ($60 last year). I couldn't believe how much
>>faster Steel Panthers ran! I figure that this will last me through
>>the next year at least, allowing me to skip the Pentiums and jump
>>straight to whatever is coming next (Pentium II's?). So far I have
>>had no problem with any strategy game in the last year, and I don't
>>anticipate any in the next year (keeping fingers crossed). Of course,
>>YMMV.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Grifman
>>
>X-wing vs Tie fighter really does need a p120 or faster for multi player.
>Others will follow soon.
You're absolutely right, but read again. I said I played only
strategy games. I don't believe that X-wing vs. Tie Fighter falls
into that category. So the shoe doesn't fit.
Grifman
Grifman
Dennis Keith <dgk...@phl.vet.upenn.edu> wrote:
>This thread is a great discussion on a interesting problem. I'd like to
>expand it slightly.
>I have a 486DX4/100 and would like to "upgrade" to run games (mostly
>strategy) better(faster), etc. However, I'm on a budget so a PPro or 200
>MMX is out.
>What are some ideas for the optimal upgrade on $400-$500 dollars?
>Specifically, if I change out the motherboard (I don't see any way around
>it) is a P133 (66 Mhz bus) or a P150 (60Mhz bus) better? The P150 is
>about $29-$30 more expensive.
>Also is a 512k L2 cache necessary at this level or will 256k do? (again
>about $20.
>Is 16Megs enough or do I need 32Megs?
>Thanks in advance.
>DK
How much ram do you have? If you have only 8, then an upgrade to 16
will do wonders and may be all you need. As I noted I have an
AMD586-133 upgrade chip with a total of 16 megs ram. I added the chip
and 8 meges of ram to my original 8 and it made a world of difference.
I have no problem running any strategy out there. I personally would
add the ram and hold off on anything else until ready to buy another
computer. Just my thoughts
Grifman
Dennis Keith
JD
>I have a 486DX4/100 and would like to "upgrade" to run games (mostly
>strategy) better(faster), etc. However, I'm on a budget so a PPro or 200
>MMX is out.
>
>What are some ideas for the optimal upgrade on $400-$500 dollars?
I recently picked up some upgrade components for a friend of mine,
consisting of a Shuttle HOT553 <430HX> mainboard w/512K L2 cache, an
Intel P166 CPU, and 32 meg of 60ns EDO RAM... all for around $400. Now
if you're converting from a VLB system, you'll probably want a new
video card as well. You can get a shit hot ET6000 based 2D card for
around $60 more.
>Specifically, if I change out the motherboard (I don't see any way around
>it) is a P133 (66 Mhz bus) or a P150 (60Mhz bus) better? The P150 is
>about $29-$30 more expensive.
If they GAVE me the 150 for no additional cost I wouldn't take it. The
133 is a better set up because of the 66mhz bus. The 166 runs on a
66mhz bus as well.
>Also is a 512k L2 cache necessary at this level or will 256k do? (again
>about $20.
At this point I would say the $20 extra for the upgrade to 512k L2 is
very worthwhile if you can get it on board. I wouldn't go too far out
of my way for a COAST module though... toss up there.
>Is 16Megs enough or do I need 32Megs?
If the price is reasonable <eg, $5 per meg or less>, then definitely
go for 32. And if you intend to run Win95, get 32 even if it's a
*little bit* on the unreasonable side <g>.
Regards, JD
j...@ct1.nai.net
kb...@delphi.com
Dennis Keith
Thanks to those of you who have already replied.
Let me specify my system: 486dx4/100,20MB RAM,VLB Cirrus Logic (old),10x
CD-ROM, 1.5 GB HDD, SB 32AWE, 28.8 ZOOM Modem
The questions I was asking (I would still appreciate advice) were:
Is a P133 or a P150 a better upgrade value?
Is a 512k L2 cache better than 256k (for $20)?
Is 32 Megs really necessary, or will 16 do OK?
Thanks to all that have responded. I have a couple of comments:
To those who say that I should wait and get a Pentium II w/MMX - When
would this end? By the time I could afford the Pentium II, the Merced
will probably be out. Should I wait then? At this point, I'm a student
with a small budget, that enjoys playing games. I don't need to be at
the leading edge of technology, just hanging on to the trailing edge by
my fingernails.
I actually agree that I would like to get a Pentium II or better, but I
need to eat in the meantime. Money flow won't improve for 2 years. The
1000MHz Merced will make a good graduation present :-)
Back to the problem at hand: I need a few more bits of advice.
Are there any companies to buy the components from that are better than
others? I can put the boards in myself, but I want to buy from a
reputable company.
Is the Internet (or the Computer Shopper) the best place to find
companies?
The best advice I have so far is: P166 on an inexpensive motherboard with
512k cache, 32 Megs, and an ET6000 PCI video card. Anyone have any
better ideas?
Thanks, DK
GUI TERENCE ANG
On Thu, 8 May 1997, Dennis Keith wrote:
> This thread is a great discussion on a interesting problem. I'd like to
> expand it slightly.
>
> I have a 486DX4/100 and would like to "upgrade" to run games (mostly
> strategy) better(faster), etc. However, I'm on a budget so a PPro or 200
> MMX is out.
>
> What are some ideas for the optimal upgrade on $400-$500 dollars?
>
> Specifically, if I change out the motherboard (I don't see any way around
> it) is a P133 (66 Mhz bus) or a P150 (60Mhz bus) better? The P150 is
> about $29-$30 more expensive.
>
> Also is a 512k L2 cache necessary at this level or will 256k do? (again
> about $20.
>
> Is 16Megs enough or do I need 32Megs?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> DK
If you are on a budget, you should at least take a look at the Cyrix P200+
or the K6-200 MMX, if not then their respective 166 versions. I would
reccomend 32 megs of ram, esp. if you perform any type of multi-tasking in
Win95. The performance increase you'll see from 16 to 32 won't be nearly
as dramatic as 8 to 16, but you'll definitely see a difference (a lot less
hard disk thrashing).
I don't know what the prices are over in the states, but here in Canada a
Cyrix P200+ (if you don't mind getting a non-MMX CPU) + Motherboard + 32
megs ram costs under $650CDN, this should translate to roughly $450us, and
even the most fanatic Intel lovers will have to agree that a P200+ will
run faster than a 150mhz Pentium (don't bring up Quake, it's not strategy
game).
TAG
Robert Cooke
In article <337285...@phl.vet.upenn.edu>, Dennis Keith <dgk...@phl.vet.upenn.edu> writes:
> I have a 486DX4/100 and would like to "upgrade" to run games (mostly
> strategy) better(faster), etc. However, I'm on a budget so a PPro or 200
> MMX is out.
>
> What are some ideas for the optimal upgrade on $400-$500 dollars?
>
> Specifically, if I change out the motherboard (I don't see any way around
> it) is a P133 (66 Mhz bus) or a P150 (60Mhz bus) better? The P150 is
> about $29-$30 more expensive.
>
> Also is a 512k L2 cache necessary at this level or will 256k do? (again
> about $20.
>
> Is 16Megs enough or do I need 32Megs?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> DK
You should be able to get a P166 and motherboard in the $300-$400 range with
a 256K L2 cache which should be enough. I would buy two 16MB EDO RAM to give
yourself 32MB for Windows 95/97. This won't be a top of the line motherboard
but you should be able to get one that will handle a P200 later. Now you will
probably have to upgrade your SVGA card to a 64bit PCI bus card. That will take
you past $500 with the above. If you want to save some money just go with the
P133 but make sure that the mb can upgrade to a P200.
I am only using a Cyrix 586/120 with 16MB of RAM and it works well enough for
the games that I have (Steel Pathers 2 is the newest). However, Duke Nukem in
the good SVGA mode is too slow.
--
<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
Robert W. Cooke rwc...@compuserve.com, rwc...@austin.ibm.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rwcooke/
Anthony de Vries
Brian Haight wrote:
>
> huf...@news.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM (Bill Huffman) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 02 May 1997 19:23:09 GMT, bha...@odyssey.on.ca (Brian Haight)
> >wrote:
>
> >> Just wanted to throw my two cents into the mine's bigger/faster
> >>than your's debates.
> >>
>
> >Well my reading of this thread is that the issue is "mine is older
> >and not a whole lot slower". My system is one of the very early
> >first out VLB systems. A barn burner 486 66MHz. I've upgraded
> >the monitor, the video board, the I/O board, and the disk.
> >Man is it fast. I can even play Wing Commander 3 (haven't tried 4)
> >and MOO2. On MOO2 I only have to wait a few seconds to change screens.
> >If anyone is interested in trading my barn burner for a Pentium
> >or even a Pentium Pro then, I might be willing to consider it.
> >If you sweetened the pot of course. :-)
>
> >Actually the original poster made what I thought was a good point.
> >The suggested system on the box is just a generic guideline at
> >best. For example, I'm sure my system is faster than most
> >486 66MHz systems out there. If the system can do the job
> >you need done then, it's a fine system. I still wish I had
> >a faster one though. :-(
>
> I also think that one of the most underrated parts of anybody's
> system is their config.sys and autoexec.bat files, and their knowlege
> of how to use them. Even people running Win95, these two files are
> still there and go a long way to determining how efficient any system
> is. Fine tuning your config.sys and autoexec.bat (and especially fine
> tuning Smartdrive) seems to be becoming a lost art these days. Any
> comments.
There's no such thing as fine tuning your config.sys under Dos.
You build it, and do it right. Nothing really fancy, and certainly very
little to tune.
It's only a few things... Dos high, as much as possible in UMB.
Doesn't mean a thing for performance, but you'll need the conventional
memory.
Smartdrive will speed up Windows a lot. On games it depends. But also
then it's just default settings.
And that's all there is to it. The only factor that will matter for
performance is smartdrv. Changing the default settings will hardly give
any resulst, except in very special cases.
HD and CD drivers allways are installed with fastest settings, so
nothing to do there.
So again... what it there to fine-tune. Knowing how to create UMB has
nothing to do with fine-tuning, but is just decent installation of your
computer. That people don't do that right, is just plain lazyness.
Knowing how to install your VCR, and putting all the channels right,
isn't considered fine tuning also is it?
Conclusion: You won't get any performance out of the config.sys besides
smartdrv. Anything else, is due to hardware, and better drivers, or
plain stupidity from the user.
Anthony.
Nan Wang
Dennis Keith <dgk...@phl.vet.upenn.edu> wrote:
> I have a 486DX4/100 and would like to "upgrade" to run games (mostly
> strategy) better(faster), etc. However, I'm on a budget so a PPro or 200
> MMX is out.
Then save up! :-)
> What are some ideas for the optimal upgrade on $400-$500 dollars?
> Specifically, if I change out the motherboard (I don't see any way around
> it) is a P133 (66 Mhz bus) or a P150 (60Mhz bus) better? The P150 is
> about $29-$30 more expensive.
P150 without a doubt. Then you can easily overclock it to P166.
> Also is a 512k L2 cache necessary at this level or will 256k do? (again
> about $20.
> Is 16Megs enough or do I need 32Megs?
256K cache is enough for 16 MB of RAM, 32 is iffy. Anything over that you
will need 512K.
What about video card? Getting a pentium probably will make you buy a PCI
video card, if you are interested, I have an Diamond Stealth sitting around,
I'll let you have it, cheap :-) :-)
Brian Haight
JD
On Fri, 09 May 1997 16:41:32 +0100, Anthony de Vries <"Anthony de
Vries"> wrote:
>Conclusion: You won't get any performance out of the config.sys besides
>smartdrv. Anything else, is due to hardware, and better drivers, or
>plain stupidity from the user.
Gotta disagree with you there Anthony. For example, matching your
EMM386.EXE parameters to a particular game, such as not using EMS
unless you have to, or leaving EMM386 out altogether when using DOS
extenders, can have an impact on performance.
Regards, JD
j...@ct1.nai.net
kb...@delphi.com
Randy Sommer
If you play strategy games... I suggest you get a pentium. I got a
486/DX2 66 MHz when they first came out... then my school got the first
pentium's to come out (60 MHz's) and they WERE A CRAP LOAD FASTER THAN
MY COMPUTER!! So first of all, pentium DOES make a difference, next,
most of the new strategy games are getting alot more graphics,
multimedia, sound and everything intensive... just take a look at Civ
II!! So, i recommend that you get a pentium.
Nan Wang
Dennis Keith <dgk...@phl.vet.upenn.edu> wrote:
> The best advice I have so far is: P166 on an inexpensive motherboard with
> 512k cache, 32 Megs, and an ET6000 PCI video card. Anyone have any
> better ideas?
Mobo:
Get one which supports SDRAM, can cache more than 64 MB of RAM, and supports
75/83 mhz bus speed. Might not be cheap though...
Sebastian Dransfeld
> You should be able to get a P166 and motherboard in the $300-$400 range with
> a 256K L2 cache which should be enough. I would buy two 16MB EDO RAM to give
But a P150 and overclock it to 166.
> yourself 32MB for Windows 95/97. This won't be a top of the line motherboard
> but you should be able to get one that will handle a P200 later. Now you will
> probably have to upgrade your SVGA card to a 64bit PCI bus card. That will take
> you past $500 with the above. If you want to save some money just go with the
> P133 but make sure that the mb can upgrade to a P200.
Sebastian Dransfeld
Arne Bergsgårdsv 22-36 email: seba...@stud.ntnu.no
7033 Trondheim tlf. : 73 88 94 60
Lord Mark
Dennis Keith wrote:
>
> Thanks to those of you who have already replied.
>
> Let me specify my system: 486dx4/100,20MB RAM,VLB Cirrus Logic (old),10x
> CD-ROM, 1.5 GB HDD, SB 32AWE, 28.8 ZOOM Modem
>
> The questions I was asking (I would still appreciate advice) were:
>
> Is a P133 or a P150 a better upgrade value?
The 150 if you tell your motherboard that it is a 166. (overclocking)
>
> Is a 512k L2 cache better than 256k (for $20)?
YES YES YES
> Is 32 Megs really necessary, or will 16 do OK?
Works really good for games
> Thanks to all that have responded. I have a couple of comments:
> To those who say that I should wait and get a Pentium II w/MMX - When
> would this end? By the time I could afford the Pentium II, the Merced
> will probably be out. Should I wait then? At this point, I'm a student
> with a small budget, that enjoys playing games. I don't need to be at
> the leading edge of technology, just hanging on to the trailing edge by
> my fingernails.
No don't wait P133 can be had for $130 and motherboards can be had for
$100
> I actually agree that I would like to get a Pentium II or better, but I
> need to eat in the meantime. Money flow won't improve for 2 years. The
> 1000MHz Merced will make a good graduation present :-)
Go to Intel's website and read about the prolbems with Pent. pro and the
Pent2
> Are there any companies to buy the components from that are better than
> others? I can put the boards in myself, but I want to buy from a
> reputable company.
Where do you live by there should be a computer store that sells parts.
If not you can order them of the web also http://www.onsale.com/
is where I got some of my computer parts, I have not had a prolbem
there...
> Is the Internet (or the Computer Shopper) the best place to find
> companies?
> The best advice I have so far is: P166 on an inexpensive motherboard with
> 512k cache, 32 Megs, and an ET6000 PCI video card. Anyone have any
> better ideas?
I have a P133 with a matrox Mistique (4megs) I like this V. Card A 166
is 10% faster that the 133 and now is about 50% more is it worth it?????
--
Travel light in life,
Take only what you need, A loving Family, good friends, simple
pleasures,
someone to love, and someone to love you, enough to eat,
and a little more than enough to drink,
for thirst is a dangerous thing....
Have gun will travel
Wire Pali...@getnet.com
Michael Lewchuk
Randy Sommer <ran...@mtco.com> writes:
Although I'm not disputing the fact that Pentiums are faster than 486s, with
most strategy games and nearly all RPGs what is required is not CPU power, but
half decent (and I emphasize half) video output. What do you need nowadays?
I'd say PCI video and a 4xCD and that's about it. Strategy games are getting
a lot more AV intensive, but when you consider most of them could be played
comfortably on a 386 system 2 or 3 years ago, or even a 486 a year or two
ago, there's a LOT of room between that and NEEDING a Pentium.
I kept playing strategy and RPG games on a 486/33 with ISA video, such as Civ
2 and MechWarrior 2 up until last year, when I put in an AMD 5x86 486/133 and
PCI video. I'm satisfied with most game performance I encounter on this
system. Not happy, but satisfied.
Michael Lewchuk
lew...@cs.UAlberta.CA
Happy
Dang it, my system's only a year and a half old and it's already become
the "minimum requirement." A lot of the games coming out have 90Mhz
Pentiums as their minimum standard. I bought two of 'em. At least
their minimum memory requirement wasn't 32 but 16 megs.
If you'd like to help this poor soul upgrade his system, please send
e-mail. : - )
--
.
.
01001000011101010110011101101000
Happy
zz...@bellatlantic.net
In article <3377F9...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>,
Happy <hug...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
I'm assuming you have a pentium 90. If your comfortable taking the cover
off your computer and you have the motherboard manual [if not take a
close look at the motherboard, it may have jumper settings printed on
it.] Anyways, a real quick easy and safe boost in speed for you would be
to change your clock speed from 60mz to 66mz. Involves moving a jumper or
two. This will give you a pentium 100 on a 66mz bus. Noticably faster!
Your pentium should be fine with the small increase in speed. It's the
bus speed that makes the difference. I've got my p133 running at 150 on a
75mz bus. I bought a bigger fan and heat sink with compound to be safe.
But I'm pushing much harder. If you really want to be daring try changing
the multipler to 2x. This will give you either a P120 at 60mz or P133 at
66mz if your memory is fast enough. Pentiums are very overclockable!!