Cyrix VS AMD VS Intel. The Final Release.

[Bill Broadley]

Interesting reading.

Kenny Ng <jus...@mbox2.singnet.com.sg> wrote:
> CYRIX VS AMD VS INTEL - The Final Release, 4th Edition
> "Buy Cyrix, Not Intel. Here's Why"

> From Kenny Ng, the World's Leading Authority on Chips

> ABOUT THE FINAL RELEASE
> The Final Release is the final episode about the continuing struggle
> between the Cyrix 6x86MX-233 and the Intel Pentium II 233. Throughout
> the various editions of this monumental article, many friends and critics
> around the world has e-mailed to me, making the discussion a much more
> interesting one. I've added all that I can add to The Final Release. I'm
> not going to release any more editions regarding the War of the 6x86MX233
> and Pentium II 233. This is, and will be, the Final Release. There will
> not be any more replies to Cyrix critics. The War has ended.

> WHAT'S YOUR NEXT PLAN, KENNY?
> You wana know my next plan? Now that The War between the Great Cyrix
> 6x86MX 233 and Intel Pentium II 233 has finally ended, which resulted in a
> total, complete and convincing victory for the Cyrix, my next plan will be
> to
> compare the CYRIX 6x86MX-300 with the INTEL PENTIUM II 300. I'll have
> to wait till the Cyrix 6x86MX-300 chip comes out.

> WHAT'S NEW IN THE FINAL RELEASE?

> **An astounishing last minute support was given by LutherJP, a formidable
> Cyrix soldier. I was about to launch this monumental thesis onto the
> relevant
> newsgroups, PC Magazine and Byte Magazine when I received his last minute
> supportive e-mail! So Luther, as a reward for your undying support, I'm
> gonna include you in this history-making Thesis of the Year!**

> **"What's Innovative about Cyrix chip" article was added.**

> **Cyrix architectural features were added for the curious.**

> **A small change was made in the calculation of the amount of 32-bit
> power offered by Intel for each consumer dollar.**

> **Extensive pro-Cyrix comments by various authoritative magazines and chip
> review editors were added**

> **An extremely strong argument for Cyrix was added to "Why I
> Choose Cyrix". This argument is: We should compare Intel and Cyrix
> chips that are priced the same or similarly priced. So we should compare
> a Cyrix 6x86MX 233 with an Intel Pentium MMX166, not with an Intel Pentium
> II 233. The Cyrix 6x86MX 233 blows the Intel Pentium MMX 166 into a
> thousand pieces, outgunning it by offering much better performance at a
> similar price.**

> **An admiration for Cyrix technology factor was added to "Why I
> Choose Cyrix".**

> **A last argument against Intel was added to "Why I Choose Cyrix". This
> argument is regarding the no. of steps required for the installation of the

> Pentium II, Pentium II chip size, motherboard size and casing size.**

> **Windows Sources Magazine benchmarks are in!**

> **Extensive replies to anti-Cyrix critics and pro-Cyrix friends were
> added.**

> **E-mails from many satisfied and happy Cyrix loyalist forces were added.**

> **Cyrix Corporate Profile info was added.**

> **Cyrix Senior Management info was added.**

> GOOD NEWS FOR NEW PC USERS
> Users confused by which chip to buy should find enough
> information here to help them decide. The findings and
> painstaking research and refutation will inevitably lead them
> to Cyrix or AMD.

> ABOUT THE 1st EDITION
> The previous 1st edition has generated considerable
> controversies, particularly from a guy called Benson Chow.
> He could have been more diplomatic in his reply. Instead,
> he shot a whole series of profanities at me, while misunderstanding
> my statement "Cyrix is the best" all the time. When I meant
> "Cyrix is the best" (see review below), I meant that it is THE
> BEST in terms of offering best bang for the buck. And no
> one can contest or dispute this fact. I do not mean that
> Cyrix is absolutely the best. It is not the best in terms of
> FPU performance and 32-bit power. But It IS the best
> in terms of PRICE/PERFORMANCE RATIO. Take for
> example, Cyrix offers 1.53 32-bit power per dollar, as opposed to
> AMD offering 1.24 32-bit power per dollar, while Intel
> offers a pathetic 0.84 32-bit power per dollar. Cyrix
> offers the best bang for the buck when we consider 32-bit
> power per dollar alone. This is an indisputable fact.

> REVIEW CRITERIA:
> I review a chip based on its price/performance ratio. So for myself, I
> choose
> a chip that offers the best bang for the buck. For others whose criteria
> is
> performance, I have also added comments for them.

> CYRIX 6x86MX PROCESSOR BRIEF AND ARCHITECTURAL OVERIVEW

> Cyrix 6x86MX™ Processor
> Processor Brief
> The 6x86MX™ processor is an MMX™ enhanced CPU offering the highest level of
> Windows® 95 performance available for mainstream desktop systems. The
> 6x86MX™ processor is compatible with MMX technology to run the latest MMX
> games and multimedia software. With its enhanced memory management unit, a
> 64-KByte internal cache, and other advanced architectural features, the
> 6x86MX™ processor achieves higher performance and offers better value than
> competitive processors.

> Architectural Overview

> The 6x86MX™ processor offers significant enhancements over the 6x86™
> processor. These enhancements enable the 6x86MX™ processor to achieve
> higher performance at any given clock speed.

> The 6x86MX™ design quadruples the internal cache size to 64-KBytes, triples
> the TLB size, and increases the frequency scalability to 200 MHz and
> beyond, relative to the 6x86 processor. Additionally, it features 57 new
> MMX instructions that speed up the processing of certain
> computing-intensive loops found in multimedia and communication
> applications. The 6x86MX™ processor also contains a scratchpad RAM feature,
> supports performance monitoring and allows caching of both SMI code and SMI
> data. It delivers optimum 16-bit and 32-bit performance while running
> Windows® 95, Windows NT, OS/2®, DOS, UNIX® and other operating systems.

> The 6x86MX™ processor features a superpipelined architecture that increases
> the number of pipeline stages to reduce timing constraints and increase
> frequency scalability. Advanced architectural techniques include register
> renaming, out-of-order completion, data dependency removal, branch
> prediction and speculative execution. These design innovations eliminate
> many data dependencies and resource conflicts to achieve higher performance
> when executing both 16-bit and 32-bit software.

> WHAT'S INNOVATIVE ABOUT CYRIX CHIP?
> by Stan Miastkowski, Special to PC World

> May 30, 1997
> The Cyrix 6x86MX microprocessor line introduced today reflects the high
> level of technological innovation that permeates today's esoteric world of
> CPU design. Inside the CPU are 6.5 million transistors (for comparison, the
> Pentium II has 7.5 million).

> Cyrix designers wring extra performance out of slower clock speeds using a
> variety of tricks, including a 64K primary cache, twice the Pentium II's
> 32K. In the 6x86MX-PR233 Cyrix uses a 75-MHz system bus--faster than the
> 66-MHz standard used by Intel and AMD. And internal memory-management
> tricks reduce the need for the Cyrix chip to continually access standard
> RAM, which is slower than internal memory.

> Altogether, these and other innovations result in higher performance than
> the chips' raw speed as measured in megahertz suggests. And a
> lower-megahertz chip design draws less power and creates less heat than the
> Pentium II (21 versus 32 watts), eliminating the need for the huge heat
> sink and extra cooling that the Pentium II requires.

> Like AMD, Cyrix has also made it easy for PC manufacturers to incorporate
> the 6x86MX into existing motherboards by using a Socket-7 compatible
> design, the standard for existing Pentium-class systems. This means the
> 6x86MX can fit into any existing motherboard that supplies the dual 2.8 DC
> and 3.3 DC voltages the chip requires.

> To use the 6x86MX, all manufacturers need do is upgrade the BIOS, and
> according to Cyrix the major BIOS manufacturers--AMI, Award, and
> Phoenix--have all announced support for the 6x86MX. This differs from the
> Pentium II's SEC (Single Edge Connector) design that uses a new
> slot-mounted cartridge specifically designed for the newest generation of
> high-clock-speed CPUs, which requires a new generation of motherboards.

> The Socket 7 compatibility also holds out the tantalizing possibility that
> many users who have slower systems will be able to upgrade their systems to
> 6x86MX power. Although Cyrix got out of the chip-upgrade business several
> years ago and will sell the 6x86MX only in quantity to PC manufacturers, a
> company spokesperson said he expects chip upgrade vendors to supply plug-in
> 6x86MX upgrades in the future.

> THE BIG MOMENT HAS COME! THE WAR STARTS HERE!
> The excerpts below are dialogues between Kenny's friend,
> Chicken, an extremely anti-Cyrix critic and Kenny himself,
> together with vast amounts of performance and price data of
> Cyrix, AMD and Intel chips.

> Kenny:
> Hi Chicken (Kenny's friend), I confirmed buy Cyrix 6x86MX PR300
> somewhere in 1998 March-April. But I may also wait for Cyrix MMX2 chip
> to come out! If I wait for the MMX2 chip to come out, I may go and buy
> myself
> a 12.1-inch TFT screen notebook first! Of course, there will be NO
> Intel MMX processor inside. I look forward to a blistering fast AMD K6 or
> a Cyrix chip inside my notebook.

> Meanwhile, here's the comparison between Cyrix M2 PR233, AMD K6 PR233
> and Intel PII 233.

> These are my reasons:
> Price:
> Cyrix 6x86MXPR233 US$320
> AMD K6PR233 US$450
> Intel Pentium II 233 US$650 + needs a motherboard that accepts
> Slot One can is about S$200 more expensive.
>
> In terms of price, the decision is clear cut and indisputable. Cyrix.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.

> Windows 95 Arena
> Business Winstone is simply awesome:
> 6x86MXPR233 56.7
> Pentium II 233 57.8
>
> Both chips are almost equal but 6x86MX is 2 times cheaper than the
> Pentium II. Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.
>
> Business Winstone
> 6x86MXPR233 56.7
> K6PR233 55.3
>
> Cyrix is cheaper and faster than AMD. Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.
>
> Quake in Windows 95
> Cyrix about 14.1 frames
> AMD 15.5 frames
> Intel 27 frames

> Cyrix is twice as cheap as Intel, and twice as slow. AMD is somewhere in
> between.
> Intel is twice as expensive as Cyrix and twice as fast for Quake in
> Windows.
> But I can get a Monster 3D card etc to pair up with the Cyrix. The total
> cost would
> be similar to that of a Pentium II 233. Both would give me > 30 frames a
> second
> but the Cyrix/Monster 3D combo has the added advantage of 3-D features.
> If AMD is paired with a Monster 3D, it would still give > 30 frames a
> second. But
> the cost would be higher than a Cyrix/Monster 3D combo. So I'll go for the
> Cyrix.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> NT Arena
> Business Winstone
> 6x86MXPR233 72.3
> Pentium II 78.4
>
> Cyrix is slower but again, twice as cheap. Conclusion: Cyrix is the
> best.
>
> Business Winstone
> 6x86MXPR233 72.3
> K6PR233 71
>
> Cyrix is faster and cheaper than AMD. Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.
>
> Highend Winstone
> 6x86MXPR233 about 24
> Pentium II 32.2
>
> Intel has a commanding lead in performance and price. But it is
> twice as expensive but NOT twice as fast.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.
>
> Highend Winstone
> 6x86MXPR233 about 24
> K6 26.9
>
> Cyrix is slower than the K6 but cheaper. And it's faster in other
> areas. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.
>
> CPU Mark 16
> 6x86MXPR233 455
> Pentium II 466
>
> It's completely insane (for me and others) to pay $600 for Pentium II to
> get 11 more
> points. Besides, 16-bit is fading fast. Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.
>
> CPU Mark 16
> 6x86MXPR233 455
> K6PR233 465
>
> Cyrix is slightly slower but cheaper still, and faster in other areas.
> Besides, 16-bit is
> fading fast. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.
>
> CPU Mark 32
> 6x86MXPR233 490
> Pentium II 632
>
> Intel is excellent here. I may be tempted to go for Intel but
> considering it's high price and similar performance in other integer areas,
> I'll go for
> the Cyrix. And Intel is not 980 in CPU Mark 32 even though it is twice as
> expensive. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> Chicken:
> Cyrix is really a piece of junk here, with the world going 32
> bits, i can't see how ppl can buy that, although it is cheap..
> I would want a that even if it is free!
> 1 up for Intel....

> Kenny:
> U said "I wouldn't want that even if it is free!" I would contest
> that I wouldn't want Intel, which costs 600 bucks coz I'm only
> prepared to pay somewhere between 300-400 bucks for a CPU.
> Intel CPU now costs S$998 + S$mobo 370 = almost S$1,400! No person
> would buy Intel Pentium II, except for those with
> money to splurge and crave the BEST performance of course.

> AND YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT CYRIX IS RUNNING AT ONLY 188MHZ here,
> compared to Intel running at a full 233Mhz! 5 stars rating for Cyrix for
> such a stunning technological breakthrough. and ZERO STARS, or NEGATIVE 5
> STARS for Intel's inferior architecture. Many editors and magazines have
> praised Cyrix for their superior M2 architecture at lower clock speeds
> since the 6x86. Intel is not that good.
> Why? THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN BEAT CYRIX IS USING HIGHER CLOCK SPEEDS.
> Imagine what would be the CPU mark 32 be if Cyrix is using 233Mhz clock
> speed, rated as 6x86PR300. Price would be similar to Intel's. But the CPU
> Mark 32 could be higher!

> BESIDES, Cyrix has the best PRICE/PERFORMANCE RATIO HERE. And THAT IS THE
> MOST IMPORTANT THING TO ME. Cyrix is 2 times cheaper. But is the 32 mark
> 2 times slower? No! Absolutely not! It reaches an incredible 490, almost
> 500!

> Again, I wouldn't want Intel as it costs 600 bucks, U would contest that
> WAIT FOR PRICE TO DROP. Ha ha. By then, Cyrix or AMD (I still love u)
> could have come out with 300-400Mhz speeds at incredible prices!

> CPU Mark 32
> 6x86MXPR233 490
> K6PR233 559
>
> The AMD is very strong here. If only this is taken into account, I'll
> definitely go for the AMD, no questions asked. But Cyrix's cheapness
> make Cyrix very attractive. Cyrix is also saved by some strong areas over
> AMD, especially on real world tests. Besides, I'm buy the Cyrix PR300.
> So performance should be in the high 500s. enough for 32-bit. And at that
> time, I'll be comparing AMD300 and Cyrix300. AMD300 should shoot past
> 600 Mark 32, but of course, at a higher price. As long as I have a high
> 500
> for the Cyrix300 at the lowest price, I should be happy enough.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.
>
> DOS
> Quake
> 6x86MXPR233 13.1
> Pentium II 25
>
> Intel is ALWAYS not an option (for me) as it charges 600 bucks for one
> sand.
> But for others, it is tempting here. Intel offers about twice the
> performance for
> twice the money. But remember, DOS is obsolete now. Conclusion: Cyrix is
> the best.

> Chicken:
> Agreed, DOS performance is no longer an issue here, it is obsolete..

> Kenny:
> Thanx. So no need to argue.

> Chicken:
> One up for Cyrix...
>
> Quake
> 6x86MXPR233 13.1
> K6PR233 14.2
>
> Cyrix is slightly slower but cheaper and faster in business. Besides, DOS
> is obsolete now.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.
>
> PC Player DOS 3D
> 6x86MXPR233 25.9
> Pentium II 35.3
>
> Count Pentium out. They charge 600 dollars for 1 sand. Conclusion:
> Cyrix is the best.

> Chicken:
> Hmm, Cyrix charges $320 for a sand too not very cheap either, anyway Dos
> performance is not impt here...

> Kenny:
> But compared to Intel, 320 makes a hell of a difference. Cyrix also uses
> standard moboboards, costing 175 bucks for Microstar. Intel uses 370 bucks
> boards. Intel is so expensive that I may never buy Intel again.
> A breath of relief to be able to break free from the damn DX4 series. I
> know u're bent on buying Intel. Your strategy is to wait for Pentium II
> 300 to drop. (u'll have to wait till 1999 to drop significantly) The
> problem is, Cyrix and AMD would definitely come out with super fast chips
> and super low prices. Watever the time frame, no Intel chip can beat Cyrix
> or AMD for prices (especially!), integer performance and at equivalent
> clock speeds (in the case of Cyrix).

> PC Player DOS 3D
> 6x86PR233 25.9
> K6PR233 26.4

> Cyrix is slower but cheaper and faster in other areas. Besides, DOS
> performance is
> unimportant now. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.
>
> 3D Bench
> 6x86MXPR233 333.3
> Pentium II 500
>
> Don't ever mention Pentium II THE SAND again. Conclusion: Cyrix is the
> best.

> Chicken:
> This is incredible, the cyrix could only get worse and worse,
> with the gaming world moving towards 3d, cyrix can only get such
> a pathethic 3d performance out of the $320 piece of junk, of
> course u can always buy a good 3d card to make up for it,
> but think of it... U pay additional money for the 3d card, then
> u might as well go for Pentium-II....

> Kenny Ng:
> Perhaps u forgot one thing. The 3D Bench is a DOS benchmark.
> Who needs 500 frames per second in DOS? Which is more important, real
> world winstone or DOS frames? Need I speak further?

>
> 3D Bench
> 6x86MXPR233 333.3
> K6PR233 250
>
> Amazingly, Cyrix beat AMD here. Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.

> AMD supporters simply have no defense here. Sorry, guys.

>
> Chris Dial's 3D
> 6x86MXPR233 35.9
> Pentium II 67.5

> Chicken:
> Another indication that Cyrix is the worst piece of junk that Cyrix
> have come up with to cheat consumer money...
> Who needs a piece of junk that cost $320 and need more $$$ to
> buy a 3d card to make up for it's incompentency?

> Kenny Ng:
> Who would pay 600 dollars just to get much better Chris Dial's 3D?
> Who's Chris Dial by the way? Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> Chicken:
> 1 up for intel...

> Kenny Ng:
> WHO IS CHRIS DIAL BY THE WAY? ARE U SURE THIS 3D Benchmark Runs NOT IN
> DOS? DO U THINK DOS IS THE FUTURE? (Laughing till stomach pain)

> Chris Dial's 3D
> 6x86MXPR 35.9
> K6PR233 38.4
>
> Cyrix is slower but cheaper and faster in real world tests.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.
>
> A note about DOS gaming:
> I can buy a Cyrix 6x86MXPR233 and a 3D Voodoo fx card and get stunning
> results for Quake. This would still be better than getting Pentium
> II the sand. Coz my Cyrix-Voodoo combo offers 3-D features.

> One can argue get the K6 and 3D Voodoo. But what for?
> A Cyrix/Voodoo and an AMD/Voodoo would offer about the same frame rates.
> Yet Cyrix would costs 100 bucks less.
> K6 is out and Pentium II. . . (ha ha ha).

> Chicken:
> Cyrix is one chip that gamers better avoid. Who knows what games they can
> support and every time u buy a game, u got to download a stupid patch
> from their web page. It is cheap of course, but add to it a 3d card
> and the price difference would be minimal. Even the most stupid guy
> would not consider buying that stinking piece of junk.
> unless he is completely out of his mind!!! Unless he enjoys saving a few
> miserables dollars just to get a Cyrix chip with a 3d card, he is much
> better of waiting for the Pentium-II price to drop.

> Kenny:
> A Cyrix/Voodoo 3-D combo is a much better option than a Pentium II alone.
> Why? Because the Cyrix combo can boasts of 3-D features whereas the
> Pentium II DOES NOT have any 3-D features at all! If you want 3-D, get
> an extra Voodoo to pair up with Pentium II. Do you know how much that
> would cost you?
> Again, when will Pentium II prices drop? For gamers, THEIR CURRENT OPTION
> (IF THEY NEED A PC NOW) is CYRIX! Ha ha ha ha ha. Pentium II PR233 price
> is NOT EXPECTED TO DROP SIGNIFICANTLY IN THIS YEAR. AND wait long long for
> Pentium II PR300 (perhaps till 1999 to be affordable).

> Like wat u said, u would rather pay for a cab than for a bus. Time is
> important. Would you gamers out there who wana play games and yet without
> a PC wait till 1999 for Pentium II PR300? In that case, don't buy a PC
> forever. Coz faster chips will always come out.

> For a gamer considering a computer NOW, Cyrix is THE ONLY OPTION, THE WAY
> TO GO MAN. Gamers, you have no choice but to choose Cyrix, if you wana a
> pc now. WHO WOULD PAY S$1,400 for Intel sand? Perhaps Uncle Andy himself
> will pay for you?

> Kenny's Confident Research
> Let's talk about Pentium II 300 price drop. Let's say it drops to US$360
> in 1999. Cyrix would have a cheaper 6x86MX-300 in 1998.
> In 1999, its 6x86MX-300 would still be cheaper than Pentium II 300. By
> then,
> I expect Cyrix to come out with a Cyrix6x86MX-350 or Cyrix6x86MX-400 at the
> same price as Pentium II 300. Again, Intel would be beaten in 90% of the
> benchmark tests. No siliconhead would buy Intel at that time. Coz the
> Cyrix
> 6x86MX-350 or 400 would cost the same and yet be faster in 90% of the
> benchmarks. OR compare the Cyrix 300. It would be almost as fast, yet cost
> cheaper. Cyrix would not be so stupid as to price its equivalent rated
> chip at the same price as Intel. Let's say for PR300, Cyrix would always
> be cheaper. For PR400, Cyrix would always be cheaper.

> Intel will come out with Kutmai MMX2 chip and Deschutes. So will Cyrix.
> So will AMD. All at cheaper prices.

> So no siliconhead CAN EVER JUSTIFY BUYING INTEL, except for some. These
> are
> the people. Unless he plays Quake 1999 for 10 hours a day, use a scanner
> through the entire night and AUTOCAD the entire morning! Then, this kind
> of siliconhead CAN BUY INTEL. GO AHEAD AND JOIN THE INTEL CAMP, This Kind
> of
> Siliconhead. ha ha ha.

> MMX
> Okay. I admit. Cyrix is weak here for their 6x86MXPR233.
> But who cares when I have a Cyrix PR300!!! (laughing arrogantly).

> Chicken:
> But how much would a Cyrix 300 cost? Beside, who knows whether
> Cyrix would still be in business???

> Kenny:
> Cyrix 300 would probably cost about the same as a Pentium II 233. But
> the MMX and FPU would also be about the same (probably slightly less than)
> as a Pentium II 233. And Cyrix 300 would BEAT Pentium II 233 in INTEGER
> significantly. I'll still go for the Cyrix.

> Yes, Cyrix WILL STILL BE IN BUSINESS, AS LONG AS BIG BLUE BROTHER IBM IS.

> About Windows Memphis-the true 32-bit OS.
> The Cyrix 6x86MXPR300 should be able to handle this OS well as its CPU
> Mark 32 should be in the high 500s.

> So gamers, relax. Cyrix 6x86MXPR300 is confident of taking on the brave
> new world of 32-bit. Its smaller brother PR233 may not be that good. But
> PR300 will be a rocket. Period.

> PC Magazine results are in:
> The K6 and Pentium II systems come with normal hard disks while Cyrix
> pair its chip with a superb Seagate Cheetah hard disk.

> Business Winstone
> 6x86MXPR233 51
> AST Bravo Pentium II 233 51
>
> Both are the same and yet AST machine costs more than the Cyrix
> machine. Of course, if the AST is equipped with a Seagate Cheetah,
> it would perform better than Cyrix. But again, price would be much higher
> just to get a few more Winstone points. Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.
>
> Business Winstone
> 6x86MXPR233 51
> Polywell K6PR233 49
>
> Cyrix is faster due to a Cheetah hard disk. I'm not sure about the price
> difference between the Polywell machine and the Cyrix machine. I'm also
> not sure about the AMD performance if it has a Cheetah hard disk.
> Conclusion: No conclusion here due to insufficient data.
>
> Graphics Winmark
> 6x86MXPR233 92
> AST Bravo Pentium II 233 104
>
> Count Intel out again for its high price. AST is a more expensive machine
> but
> does not offer twice the performance. Use the money saved to get a Cyrix
> and
> a superb Hercules 128/3D video card. Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.
>
> Graphics Winmark
> 6x86MXPR233 92
> Polywell K6PR233 80
>
> Cyrix has a good lead here. I'm not sure about the price difference
> between the
> K6 machine and the M2 machine. Conclusion: No conclusion due to
> insufficient
> data.
>
> Disk Winmark
> 6x86MXPR233 1,630
> AST Bravo Pentium II 233 997
>
> Who says CPU is the only factor here? The Pentium II, with a supposedly
> superior CPU, has a horribly low disk winmark. I'll buy a Cyrix and a
> super hard disk like the Seagate Cheetah (fastest in the world with
> 10,000 rpm rate). The resulting price of Cyrix/Seagate Cheetah in my
> machine
> would probably still be cheaper than a Pentium II/normal Quantum.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.
>
> Disk Winmark
> 6x86MXPR233 1,630
> Polywell K6PR233 1,310
>
> AMD lost to Cyrix here. But it is because the Cyrix has a Cheetah. And
> I'm
> not sure about the price difference between the AMD machine and the Cyrix
> machine.
> Conclusion: No conclusion due to insufficient data.
>
> Compatibility:
> I'm confident of this. Even if some games aren't compatible with
> 6x86MX, I don't mind coz I don't play them! Even Diablo runs on the legacy
> Cyrix
> 6x86. Why spend so much time worrying about this? Those who can't play
> doesn't know about their machines. Cyrix may not be the problem. The
> motherboards
> may be the problem.

> CNET Results are in!

> CNET Performance Index

> Win 95
> Intel PII 233 89
> Cyrix M2 233 80
> AMD K6 233 78
> Intel P200 MMX 75

> The Cyrix is the cheapest among all the chips (Yes! Cheaper than an Intel
> Pentium 200 MMX!) and yet it can boast of a 2nd best score of 80. Intel's
> PII 233 is twice as expensive, but is only 9
> points higher than the Cyrix. Cyrix offers the best bang for the buck.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.

> NT 4.0
> Intel PII 233 79
> Cyrix M2 233 76
> AMD K6 233 74
> Intel P200 MMX 72

> Again, Cyrix is cheapest and posted the 2nd best score of 76. Cyrix offers
> the best bang for the buck as Intel only wins Cyrix by 3 points for twice
> the price. Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.

> Cyrix's own results are in!

> ZD Winstone 97 for Windows 95
> Cyrix 6x86MX PR233 49.4
> Intel Pentium II 233 49.9

> Cyrix is only 0.5 points slower than Intel and yet costs twice as cheap!
> Incredible!
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the best

> ZD Winstone 97 for NT
> Cyrix 6x86MX PR233 63.5
> Intel Pentium II 233 65.7

> Again, Cyrix is only slightly slower and yet costs 2 times cheaper!
> Excellent price/
> performance ratio. Conclusion: Cyrix is the best

> PC Week results are in!
> Windows 95 Business Winstone 97
> Intel Pentium II 233 49.00
> Cyrix 6x86MX-233 48.70
> Intel Pentium 233 MMX 44.80
> Cyrix is only 0.30 points slower (which can't be noticed by the user) but
> costs twice as cheap.
> The Pentium 233 MMX is now a COMPLETELY OBSOLETE CPU as it is more
> expensive than
> Cyrix and is the slowest. Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.

> CPU Mark 16
> Intel Pentium 233 MMX 469
> Intel II Pentium 233 452
> Cyrix 6x86MX-233 442

> The Cyrix definitely beat the Pentium II here in terms of price/performance
> ratio. The Pentium II is only 10 points more than the Cyrix and yet costs
> twice as much. The Pentium 233 MMX is a bit faster but also costs more.
> Since 16-bit applications are doomed to perish, it doesn't matter if the
> Pentium 233 MMX is faster than Cyrix. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> CPU Mark 32
> Intel Pentium 233 628
> Cyrix 6x86MX-233 478
> Pentium 233 MMX 466

> Intel is excellent here. I may be tempted to go for Intel but considering
> it's high price and similar performance in other integer areas, I'll go for
> the Cyrix. And Intel is not 956 in CPU Mark 32 even though it is twice as
> expensive. The Pentium 233 MMX is definitely out of the contention since
> it is slower and more expensive. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> NT 4.0 Business Winstone 97
> No Intel Pentium II 233 results were available
> Cyrix 6x86MX-233 62.20
> AMD K6-233 60.30
> Intel Pentium 233 MMX 58.40

> The decision is clear cut and indisputable. Cyrix is the fastest and the
> cheapest. Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.

> NT Photoshop Gaussian Blur (In seconds, smaller is better)
> AMD K6-233 12.80
> Intel Pentium 233 MMX 13.90
> Cyrix 6x86MX-233 17.80

> Okay. I admit. Cyrix is the slowest here. But I'll still choose Cyrix
> for several reasons. First, it is the cheapest. Second, I rarely use
> graphics software like Photoshop. And third, the difference between the
> AMD and Cyrix is 5 seconds but Cyrix costs more than 100 bucks cheaper.
> And the difference between the Intel and the Cyrix is only a miserable 3.9
> seconds, which is not that serious. Conclusion for myself and for those
> who want to have the cheapest chip, rarely use Photoshop and can't be
> bothered with a few seconds difference: Cyrix is the way to go.

> NT Photoshop Unsharpen Mask (In seconds, smaller is better)
> Intel Pentium 233 MMX 4.40
> AMD K6-233 5.40
> Cyrix 6x86MX-233 6.40

> Cyrix is the slowest BUT also the cheapest. Conclusion: For those who
> accept nothing but the cheapest chip, rarely use Photoshop and can't be
> bothered with a few seconds difference: Cyrix is the way to go.

> Windows Sources results are in!

> Windows 95

> Business Winstone 97
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 50.5
> AMD K6 233 47
> Intel Pentium 233 MMX 46.4

> Cyrix is definitely the winner here. It is the cheapest and the fastest.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the best.

> Business Graphics Winmark
> Intel Pentium 233 MMX 94.7
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 89.2
> AMD K6 233 89.1

> Cyrix beat the AMD here but the Intel has an edge in performance. I'll
> still go for the Cyrix due to a cheaper price. Conclusion: Cyrix is the
> way to go.

> Business Diskwinmark 97
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 1,810
> Intel Pentium II 266 1,190
> Intel Pentium 233 MMX 1,105
> AMD K6 233 1,080

> Cyrix definitely blow all competitors away here. Though it uses a more
> expensive Seagate Cheetah hard disk, its system price should still be less
> than or comparable to an Intel Pentium II 266, which is more expensive and
> pathetically slow. Even if the Cyrix system price turns out to be higher
> than a P II 266 system, it's still worth the price due to its excellent
> score of 1,810. We can see here that processor performance is not the only
> factor in overall system performance. My recommendation, get the Cyrix and
> get a REAL FAST hard disk like the Seagate Cheetah with 10,000 rpm.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> CPU Mark 32
> AMD K6 233 549
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 483
> Intel Pentium 233 MMX 449

> Cyrix is second best and the cheapest. It also offers the best 32-bit
> power for each dollar. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> Windows NT

> Business Winstone 97
> Intel Pentium II 266 76
> AMD K6 233 69
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 66.1

> Intel's chip is extremely expensive but does not offer significant
> increases over the Cyrix chip, thus its price/performance ratio is poor.
> The AMD K6 is faster but more expensive. In PC Week's NT Business
> Winstone test, however, the Cyrix is actually FASTER than the K6. So it's
> not necessarily that Cyrix be slower than the AMD. For myself, I can't
> notice a few Winstone points difference. I'll go for the cheapest chip.
> Besides, I'll be buying a 300-Mhz version of the Cyrix, thus performance
> will probably be the same of even higher than a Pentium II 266.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> Business Graphics Winmark 97
> Intel Pentium II 266 121
> AMD K6 233 96.9
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 82

> The rule here is simple: The more expensive chips are faster. I'm on a
> budget. I'll go for the Cyrix. Besides, Pentium II 266 costs more than
> twice the price of a Cyrix 6x86MX 233. Does it offer a score of 164?
> Nope. As chips become more expensive, their price/performance ratio
> becomes poorer and poorer. Some people may accept this. I cannot.
> Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> Business Disk Winmark 97
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 1,685
> AMD K6 233 1,530
> Intel Pentium II 300 1,323
> Intel Pentium II 266 1,227

> The Cyrix definitely blows Intel into a thousand pieces here. Even the
> astronomically expensive Intel Pentium II 300 falls short of the AMD, not
> to mention the Cyrix. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> Highend Winstone 97
> Intel Pentium II 266 34
> AMD K6 233 27.7
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 25

> Intel's chip does not reach a score of 50 even though it is so much more
> expensive, more than twice as expensive as the Cyrix. AMD is slightly
> faster but more expensive. I'll go for the Cyrix as it is the cheapest,
> offers the best price/performance ratio and I can't be bothered with AMD's
> 2.7 point advantage. It just isn't noticeable to me. Conclusion: Cyrix is
> the way to go.

> High-end Graphics Winmark
> Intel Pentium II 266 41
> AMD K6 233 34.7
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 23.3

> Count the Intel out. It always offer the least bang for the buck. AMD's
> performance is very admirable here, considering its low price. But I'll
> stick with Cyrix, which is cheapest. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> High-end Disk Winmark
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 4,585
> AMD K6 233 4,540
> Intel Pentium II 266 3,050

> Intel is pathetic here, costing much more expensive and garnering the worst
> score. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> CPU Mark 32
> Intel Pentium II 266 694
> AMD K6 233 547
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 494

> Intel costs more than twice as expensive but it does not offer a two-fold
> increase over the Cyrix. AMD is faster but more expensive. And if we use
> the calculation formula, Cyrix offers the most 32-bit power for each
> dollar, which is all that matters to me. I want to get the most 32-bit
> power for every single dollar of mine. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> Lightwave 3D Seconds (smaller number indicate better performance)
> Alpha 500-Mhz 694
> Alpha 333-Mhz 867
> Intel Pentium II 300 867
> Intel Pentium II 266 943
> AMD K6 233 1,535
> Cyrix 6x86MX 233 2,088

> The Alphas and Intels are the speed champs here, knocking out the AMD and
> Cyrix completely and convincingly. Alphas are out as no popular games
> exist for the Alphas. Intel here at last is twice as fast as the Cyrix.
> So it is justified to pay for it. AMD is a great buy too, being somewhere
> in the middle between Intel and Cyrix. Thumbs up for Intel and AMD. BUT
> I'll still go for the Cyrix for these reasons. First, I don't use
> Lightwave 3D. I haven't even seen or use it in the first place! Second,
> I'm on a budget coz I still need to buy a new motherboard, 3-D card, big
> hard disk, 64 MB SDRAM, CD-ROM drive etc. Third, I'll never pay more than
> US$300-400 for a piece of silicon. Fourth, Cyrix performs very well across
> a broad range of applications, especially on Business Winstone 97, many
> times offering the best bang for the buck. Fifth, I'm utterly fed up with
> installing the Pentium II architecture. It takes me 7 steps just to put in
> the stinking Intel processor when I can do it in 2-3 steps with the Cyrix!
> Sixth, chips are supposed to get SMALLER, NOT BIGGER. Intel is going the
> other way round! In my opinion, the Cyrix is a very well-rounded and
> respectable chip. Conclusion: Cyrix is the way to go.

> **World-renowned chip expert, Tom, Comments Favorably on the Cyrix M2**
> "Would anybody have expected that the 6x86MX (M2) at such little clock
> speeds could touch the performance of the Pentium II? I think it's most
> impressive. Under Windows 95 the 6x86MX (M2) will give headaches to Intel
> as well as to AMD. The performance in business applications is excellent."

> "We didn't expect it, but the 6x86MX (M2) is a very attractive CPU. I have
> to say that I'm personally impressed with Cyrix, because after all the
> trouble they had with the 6x86 I never would have expected a CPU as good as
> the 6x86MX (M2)."

> "Now the 6x86MX (M2) comes out and it's even faster than the AMD K6 at
> really pathetically sounding clock speeds. Have you expected that? I
> certainly haven't and I know that AMD hasn't either."

> "Isn't it surprising that little Cyrix can develop a CPU for a pathetic
> Socket 7 board, running with the old fashioned and slow external level 2
> cache at only 66 MHz, that is faster than giant Intel's high sophisticated
> 'SEC' CPU Pentium II, with it's complicated and of course expensive
> cartridged level 2 cache running at half the CPU speed??? Doesn't it look
> as if Intel needs this complicated and expensive level 2 cache technology
> to cover their inability of designing a decent CPU core? How fast would a
> 6x86MX (M2) be with a level 2 cache like the Pentium II ? Should we really
> be stupid enough to even pay more money for Intel's lack in CPU design? I
> really wonder ...."

> **Anand, a widely respected chip review editor Comments Favorably on the
> Cyrix M2**
> "Unlike the release of the K6, which was crowded by hype, the 6x86MX was
> released in a very meek fashion. However the performance Cyrix was holding
> wasn't too meek. The 6x86MX-PR2/233 (running at 188MHz) is a faster chip
> than AMD's K6 PR2/233!!!"

> ". . . in real world tests you can expect the 6x86MX to beat the AMD K6 in
> almost every area."

> "The 6x86MX has already captured the attention of many, and I expect it to
> do quite well."

> **PC Magazine Comments Favorably on the Cyrix M2:**
> "The M2 really is inexpensive, comparatively speaking. Initial pricing per
> part (in quantities of 1,000) is $190 for the PR166, $240 for the PR200,
> and $320 for the PR233 (see "Test Results" for an explanation of PR
> ratings). Compared to the pricing of AMD's and Intel's high-end CPUs--$469
> for AMD's 233-MHz K6 and $636 for the 233-MHz Pentium II--these prices are
> dirt-cheap."

> "On our ZD Business Winstone 97 tests of a 6x86MX PR233-based reference
> machine (provided by Cyrix) running Windows 95, we found that scores were
> on a par with those of a 233-MHz K6 PC and a 233-MHz Pentium II PC."

> "There's no doubt that the 6x86MX is an attractive CPU: It's priced right
> and delivers respectable performance under Windows 95. . . if the name on
> the outside of the box isn't as important to you as the performance
> potential inside the box, you'll likely find a great bargain in an M2 PC."

> **CNET Comments Favorably on the Cyrix M2**

> "Even Advanced Micro Devices' K6 processor, considered a low-price leader
> at $460 for the 233-MHz version, costs significantly more than Cyrix's new
> high-end 6x86MX, which is priced at $320. Intel's 233-MHz Pentium II is
> priced at about $600."

> **PC Week Comments Favorably on the Cyrix M2:**
> "Cyrix's new chip is competitive with the Pentium II in performance on most
> business applications and is considerably less expensive."

> ". . .the new Cyrix chip (formerly known as the M2) is priced at $320. This
> compares with the Pentium II, which is priced at $636 and $775 for the
> 233MHz and 266MHz processors, respectively. The Cyrix chip is even less
> expensive than Intel's latest Pentium, the 233MHz MMX Pentium processor,
> which also began shipping this week and has a list price of $594."

> "In PC Week Labs' tests under Windows NT 4.0, the performance of the 6x86MX
> in a reference system from Cyrix fell just 5 percent behind the average
> performance of the seven 266MHz Pentium II desktop systems PC Week Labs
> reviewed last month. . .Furthermore, when we put the 6x86MX system against
> the Pentium II performance leader, Dell Computer Corp.'s Dimension XPS
> H266, running Windows 95, the difference was negligible."

> "Not only is Intel's newest MMX Pentium more expensive and slower than the
> Cyrix and AMD processors, it didn't even stack up well against the slower
> 200MHz version of the MMX Pentium in PC Week Labs' tests."

> **Windows Sources Comments Favorably on the Cyrix M2**

> "Bargain basement? That doesn't sound quite right, but Cyrix's new 6x86MX
> PR233 offers up MMX and high-end Pentium- or low-end Pentium II-class
> application performance under Windows 95. And it does so for about half the
> cost of one of Intel's top-of-the-line processors."

> ". . . we can say that the chip should offer an excellent value for your
> dollar. Its Win 95 performance on Business Winstone 97 kept pace with that
> of high-end Pentium-class machines."

> ". . . it can deliver business application performance comparable to that
> of $594 233-MHz Pentium- and $636 Pentium II-based systems--for much less."

> "Pros: Solid performance for a modest price."

> "Cyrix's latest offers ZIF 7 socket compatibility and solid Business
> Winstone 97 performance. . ."

> Conclusion of the conclusions: Cyrix. 6x86MXPR300.
> A person must be COMPLETELY INSANE and IGNORANT to buy a Pentium MMX, which
> is NOW A COMPLETELY OBSOLETE CPU!

> One can get an AMD K6 or the Cyrix M2 for less than an Intel Pentium MMX
> and can also get
> more performance for most of the tests. There simply ISN'T ANY convincing
> reason to get an Intel Pentium MMX!

> Chicken:
> It is completely insane to buy a chip from Cyrix!!! Cyrix is cheap, but it
> is the worst piece of junk that a sane person could buy. Who need a junk
> that cost $320 and later need to spend more money buying a 3D card to make
> up it's horrible 3d performance. I would rather buy a AMD or a Pentium-II.

> Kenny:
> Take note, Chicken. You can spend the same amount of money on either a
> Cyrix/Hercules
> 128/3D card or a Pentium II 233 alone. Both options will give you
> excellent frame rates. But
> the Cyrix/Hercules 128/3D has a formidable advantage here. They have 3-D.
> The Pentium II
> DOES NOT have 3-D. If u wana 3-D, u have to buy a Hercules. Pentium II
> chip ALONE DOES
> NOT give u 3-D features.
> So for the same price, ask yourself honestly, u wana excellent frame rates
> PLUS 3-D, you have
> only one option, Cyrix + Hercules.

> I don't oppose u buying AMD, coz it's a good bargain. It's price is rite
> and it's performance is rite. The problem is, who would notice 1 frame
> rate difference between the Cyrix and AMD? AMD is out for me.
> Best Bang for the Buck criteria is my main consideration. And that leaves
> me with NO OTHER
> ALTERNATIVE. Cyrix.

> It's my personal conviction that it's completely sane for me to buy Cyrix
> and more than completely insane to buy Intel. Intel is good (but how good
> is it in terms of architectural achievement actually?), but it is the worst
> piece of junk that a sane person could buy. 600 hard earned US dollars for
> a
> piece of sand? NO WAY MAN.

> Chicken:
> But the best is to avoid all these junk is to buy a Alpha from Digital!!!!
> Who needs those obsolete pieces of junk when u can buy a 400 mhz chip from
> Digital at the price of a pentium 200. Please avoid buying the Cyrix junk
> for now, u might spend more money in the future to plug in another chip...

> Kenny:
> Running Alpha in emulation mode is painfully slow. And there's no Alpha
> games like Quake at all! That defeats the purpose of buying an Alpha.

> Read all the benchmarks on the Cyrix and you'll agree that you'll get the
> most performance for each of your dollar from the Cyrix M2.
> Of course I would spend more money plugging in another chip, and that chip
> would be the Cyrix 7x86MX2-500 or-700. Period and thank you very much for
> your reminder here.

> SUMMARY & FINAL CONCLUSION:
> And now, the conclusion. . .

> Of course, Intel's supporters and die hard fans have these justifications:
> superior FPU, MMX and 32-bit power. That's it! Nothing more!

> Okay. If anyone wants superior FPU, MMX and 32-bit power AT ANY COSTS,
> get an Intel. Go ahead and get it!

> BUT . . . for those who wants to have the best bang for the buck, for those
> who
> want to have a chip that has the best price/performance ratio, the Cyrix
> CAN'T
> BE BEATEN.

> Cyrix (AMD and the Ewoks from Centaur Technologies) supporters have
> these justifications: superb price, superb technological breakthrough
> (Cyrix is running at only 188Mhz and BEAT Intel in integer, remember
> this!!!!!!!), inner rebellious spirit, jealousy of Intel's billions, Uncle
> Andy etc., hatred for Intel's legal department, fear of Intel's conquest of
> the world.

> And here's also an important thing:

> WHY I CHOOSE CYRIX:

> The strongest argument Why We Should and Must Buy Cyrix
> One night, I just ended preparing the 3rd edition. And suddenly, a new and
> extremely strong argument for Cyrix pops into my mind. All the time, I
> have
> been comparing the Cyrix 6x86MX-233 against Intel's Pentium II 233. But
> what
> if I take two chips from these two manufacturers that are priced the same
> or
> have similar prices?

> A Cyrix 6x86MX-233 costs US$320. The Intel chip that costs in this range
> is
> the Pentium 166 MMX, since an Intel Pentium 200 MMX is higher in price than
> the Cyrix 6x86MX-233.

> IF WE COMPARE THE Intel Pentium 166 MMX against the Cyrix 6x86MX-233,
> then Intel gets blown into a thousand pieces instantly.

> Though both costs basically the same, the Cyrix 6x86MX-233 is MUCH FASTER
> than
> the Intel Pentium 166 MMX.

> My argument was shared by another guy when I saw him suggesting using this
> same
> argument in a newsgroup.

> Yes! This is the PRIME REASON why I'm buying Cyrix. A person MUST BE
> COMPLETELY
> INSANE, MORONIC AND A COMPLETE DUMMY if he insists on buying an Intel
> Pentium 166 MMX, which is now a COMPLETELY OBSOLETE CPU! Ha Ha! My favorite
> quote again!

> FPU:
> For me, FPU is not a critical issue here. How much scanning do I need? Do
> I play Quake often? Besides, current Cyrix FPUs are well ahead of Intel
> 486sDX4 that I can't really be bothered with FPUs. Cyrix FPUs are only a
> few
> seconds behind its competitors. So it's not as serious as it seems, except
> for
> extremely large jobs. How often do I process 128MB graphics files?
> Virtually
> none. Besides, Cyrix makes up for this deficit by being faster in integer
> and by
> being cheaper. Integer is more of a concern to me. I use Word for Windows
> more
> often than play Quake or do scanning. Cyrix integer performance simply
> blow away all competitors (except for the Intel, but that costs TWICE as
> much).
> And I'll be buying a Cyrix PR300, not a PR233, so Cyrix 300 FPU power will
> be stronger
> than the Cyrix 233 benchmarks here!

> 32-bit power
> 32-bit? I'm buying at least 300Mhz, nothing less. Any Cyrix chip at 300Mhz
> WILL BE ABLE to handle 32-bit very well. I expect the CPU Mark 32 score
> of the Cyrix PR300 to be in the high 500s. Cyrix had CPU Mark 32 scores of
> 395, 439 and 490 for its three M2 chips respectively. A Cyrix M2 PR233 has
> a score of 490. So a M2 PR266 would have an estimated score of 537.5.
> This
> result is obtained by using the formula [(490-439)+(439-395)/2]+490. So a
> M2
> PR300 would likely have a result of 537.5+47.5 = 585. 585 would be higher
> than the score of an Intel Pentium Pro 200, which is 554. This would be
> good
> for 32-bit applications. Besides, Cyrix has the BEST PRICE/PERFORMANCE
> RATIO FOR 32-BIT POWER. It offers 1.53 32-bit power per dollar. This is
> calculated
> using the formula 490 CPU Mark 32 / $320. The AMD offers 559 CPU Mark
> 32/$450
> = 1.24 32-bit power per dollar. Intel offers 632 CPU Mark 32/($650 + $100
> extra for
> Slot1 motherboard) = 0.84 32-bit power per dollar. Pathetic. Cyrix is the
> best! Period.

> MMX
> Like I've said, I'm buying nothing less than 300Mhz. MMX power will
> improve.

> Change of CPU once every 3 years
> For myself, I change my CPU once every 3 years. To me, what's the point of
> buying a Pentium II 233 when it can become obsolete in 3 years time? The
> Pentium
> II 233 is THE PENTIUM 60. They're exactly the same. Personnally, I think
> the Pentium II 233 is a piece of horrible junk. CPUs are SUPPOSED to be
> smaller,
> NOT bigger. As an Operations Manager in charge of PC operations, I have
> the
> opportunity to touch new CPUs firsthand. When I pull out the Pentium II
> 233, I
> simply couldn't believe my eyes! The Pentium Pro was bad enough. It's
> heat
> sink and fan was much larger than a Pentium. It's destined to be a
> complete
> failure. The Pentium II was much larger than a Pentium Pro, THANXS to the
> horrible box it was housed in. THANX INTEL!
> In 3 years time, you'll be laughing at the speed of the Pentium II 233 and
> wonder why
> you chucked out 600 US dollars to buy that junk in the first place! It's
> just not worth it!
> Ever thought about those fools who chuck out a few thousand to buy a
> Pentium 60,
> regarded as the "Fastest Intel chip at that time" a few years back?
> I may as well go for "the cheapest chip of the newest generation currently
> on the
> market". This will definitely save me lots of money over the decades and
> also
> provide satisfactory power to me for every chip generation, since the
> cheapest
> chip, Cyrix is considered super fast to me too.

> Admiration for Cyrix's Technology
> I really and truly admire Cyrix engineers (let's not talk about their FPU
> ability here).
> Cyrix engineers are among the most brilliant scientists on earth. They are
> able
> to tune their 188-Mhz Cyrix chip to provide comparable performance with
> AMD's
> 233-Mhz K6 and even Intel's 233-Mhz Pentium II. This is an amazing
> achievement!
> This shows how efficient Cyrix M2 architecture is!

> Utterly Fed Up with Installing the Stinking Pentium II
> As an Operations Manager, I have first hand experience with the "latest",
> "cutting-edge"
> technology from Intel. I couldn't believe my eyes when I have to use at
> least 7 steps
> just to fit the huge, ungainly, stinking Pentium II onto the motherboard.
> Installation
> with Socket 7 chips like those from Cyrix/AMD/past Intel Pentium was such a
> breeze
> that I simply got totally pissed off with the Pentium II. I'm extremely
> impressed with the
> Cyrix and AMD Socket 7 chips. They need no "fancy" construction like the
> stinking
> Intel Pentium II SEC cartridge and still, they're able to touch the Pentium
> II performance.
> This is most impressive.

> Chips are supposed to get SMALLER, not BIGGER! So are MOTHERBOARDS!
> A technologically advanced race should be able to produce SMALLER and
> SMALLER chips,
> NOT BIGGER and BIGGER chips! Cyrix and AMD at least still stick with the
> same size as
> Socket 7. But look at pathetic Intel! They're making life very difficult
> to poor folks out there!
> The Pentium Pro was bad enough, having an incredibly big heat sink/cooler
> that can make
> a visiting alien laugh to death.
> The ATX motherboard, invented by Intel, is a complete piece of junk. I
> simply hate to install
> it due to its cumbersome big size. And thanx to ATX mamaboard and Intel,
> we finally can
> migrate to another piece of junk, the ATX casing, a post World War III
> design invented by engineers suffering from severe radiation damage. Intel
> engineers know how to make things bigger, never smaller.

> 3-D
> And now about 3D, the most important thing:
> *****I'll be buying a Hercules 128/3D card or some other brand in March
> 1998
> (Hercules raked in more than 100 points in beta 3D benchmarks) to replace
> my
> aging S3 868. A Hercules 128/3D card, coupled with a Cyrix PR233, will be
> at
> about the same price as a Pentium II PR233. Both will offer frame rates of
> more
> than 30 frames a second.

> But the Pentium II has a SERIOUS weakness here. It does not have 3-D
> features.

> But the Cyrix/Hercules combo, at the same price and performance as
> the Pentium II, has an added advantage of 3-D features!

> SO I SEE NO REASON AT ALL WHY I MUST BUY INTEL! THERE'S NO
> JUSTIFICATION AT ALL FOR ME TO BUY INTEL!

> Read what Anand, a chip review editor said, about pairing up the Diamond
> Monster 3D with a slow Cyrix legacy 6x86-150+.

> Anand said:
> "You say the 6x86 can't run Quake right? WRONG!!! My 6x86-150+ ran Quake
> beautifully with the Monster 3D installed (an average of 20fps+), at
> resolutions of 512 x 384 x 16 bit color and 640 x 480 x 16 bit color!!!"

> **SO IF WE PAIR A CHEAPER CYRIX M2 WITH A 3-D CARD, WE'LL STILL BE ABLE TO
> GET EXCELLENT FRAME RATES!! DEFINITELY MORE THAN 30 FRAMES A SECOND.**

> ****I think I know why I need the Cyrix so badly now. Thanx, Hercules.
> I'll watch your show from now onwards.****

> Intel Has A Serious Attitude Problem
> Read this article, written by world-renowned expert, Tom, on his visit to
> Computex's Intel booth in Taiwan and you will know what I mean.

> Tom said:
> "Although I was visiting Intel's show room in the IWC at the Computex I
> wasn't meeting any representative there. I'm happy for my press kit that
> included a nice CDROM box with MMX logo on it though. The funny thing
> however was that eventually at VIA's booth I got the chance to speak to
> Intel's 'Director of Marketing' Mr. Jag Bolaria. I asked kindly about the
> chance of testing Intel motherboards and in response I could enjoy a lovely
> statement: 'Why don't you drop me an email where you could tell me why it
> is of benefit for Intel if you should test our motherboards? You see, we
> are selling lots of motherboards all over the world, so why do you want to
> test them? Even though other companies try to compete with us [making an
> contemptuous gesture towards the showcase with the VIA Apollo VP2 chipset]
> we don't have any problems to sell our own products. [....] In case we
> should agree to a testing, we expect you to send us your results so that we
> can authorize you to publish them or ask you to not publish them. And by
> the way, you can buy our motherboards yourself if you really want to have
> them.' I answered him that I don't really need any more motherboards than I
> already get from all the other companies that are not afraid of my reviews
> and hence I'll probably never know if the Intel motherboards are any good.
> I only wonder why they want me to tell them my results first. Doesn't Intel
> have faith into their own products?

> I just wonder why on the one hand really friendly people at Intel want to
> have a meeting with me, why the German spokesman is so nice to supply me
> with a Pentium MMX 233 CPU for testing, whilst some guys in that company
> still act in this kind of incredible arrogance. This talk between me and
> Mr. Bolaria took place only half a yard from two other press people who
> followed our whole conversation. They were just as shocked as I was about
> the attitude of this 'Director of Marketing'. I really would like to shake
> hands with Intel and I know that quite a few people of Intel are thinking
> the same way, however statements as the above are really jeopardizing any
> good will to think positively about Intel."

> Kenny:
> Though Tom later seemed to patch up with Intel a bit due to a contact by a
> friendly Intel man, the fact remains that Intel has some really arrogant
> staff.

> About a week later, I read in a newsgroup that some people accused Tom of
> being arrogant in the first place as he expected Intel to give him the
> motherboards for no apparent reason at all. It's true that a big
> manufacturer like Intel will not give anything freely to Tom. But there's
> no excuse for Intel's Director of Marketing to say, "And by the way, you
> can buy our motherboards yourself if you really want to have them." To me,
> this is INCREDIBLY RUDE! Intel had better spent
> 2 more billion on "re-education and learning Eastern moral values and
> courtesy" for its staff!

> Throughout the world, all sorts of nasty stories plagued Intel. Intel has
> been accused of inventing the Slot One architecture to wipe out the
> competition. And in a sense, it's very true. Since Intel has copyrighted
> the Slot One architecture, what can poor AMD and Cyrix do? It'll be a
> fight to the end. I just hope AMD and Cyrix survive this. Intel is going
> to produce its own video chipset called the Intel 740 for the AGP. What
> would happen to poor S3 and company? Already, Intel motherboard chipsets
> and Intel motherboards have eaten away massive chunks of SiS, VIA and other
> chipset makers' market shares.

> And Intel now has 95% worldwide market share, a most serious obstacle to
> what I call "Innovative Computing".

> And some Intel renegades actually have the audacity to threaten Tom on a
> separate incident.

> Is this what we call the "Intel Business Ethics?"

> I suggest implementing "The Three Stripes" Legislation on Intel. Period.

> It's all up to us, whether to join the Empire, or to join
> Kenny Skywalker.

> From
> Cyrix All the Way
> and
> AMD I Love U

> "Join the Cyrix-AMD Alliance today. We need your help and support!
> Tatooine
> needs you!""

> Cyrix and also AMD supporters do give me your support by replying to
> jus...@mbox2.singnet.com.sg! Thanx!

> Appendix A
> Dialogue between Bill "Anti-Cyrix" Culp and Kenny "Cyrix All the Way"
> Skywalker

> Bill Culp:
> To Kenny Ng:Your long discussion of Cyrix vs other CPUs still doesn't
> illuminate the problem with Cyrix.It is obvious to the industry at large
> that Cyrix has no intention of buckling down and implementing a good FPU.
> The Cyrix FPU has always been incredibly weak. The fact that Cyrix is
> ignoring the FPU perforance issue to cut costs presents Cyrix with a
> credibility problem in the industry just like the Pentium floating point
> division problems did for Intel. People don't want to save money and get
> crap in return. People really want a comparable product in exchange for
> less money. Cyrix FPU and MMX implementation are not comparable to Intel or
> even AMD. So why buy it? Its not half the price of AMD after all and AMD K6
> performance is at least comparable to Intel Pentium II at the same clock
> speed. Remember the COMPUTE in computers and you will see why ignoring
> crucial parts of CPU architecture like the FPU is a bad idea for a cpu
> manufacturer.

> Kenny Ng
> To Bill Culp:
> Good that you reply. I was hoping that someone, whether supporter, or
> critic., would reply.

> I do agree that there are some people (or maybe many) out there, you among
> them, that want to have the best performance, rather than a low price. But
> do note that there are many out there ( like me) who emphasize on
> price/performance ratio and best bang for the buck.

> I do agree that Cyrix maybe sealing its doom by disregarding the many
> complaints about the weaker FPU. I think the only way for Cyrix to change
> is to replace its cost-conscious engineers and decision makers with people
> like me! Who will give nothing less than a "More than Intel" FPU to the
> consumers.

> I would like to correct one thing about your comparison of AMD K6 and Cyrix
> M2.

> AMD K6 performance IS on a par with Intel P2 at the same clock speeds. But
> that does not prove anything!

> Cyrix NEED NOT be priced at half the price of the AMD K6!

> Here's Why:
> It beats AMD in several areas, except FPU and MMX of course. So overall, I
> would say they are a good match, perhaps 50 (Cyrix) - 50 (AMD) or 60
> (Cyrix) - 50 (AMD), depending on your needs. So why does Cyrix need to
> price its M2 at half the price of K6? There's no need at all.

> Besides, Cyrix is running at only 188Mhz and AMD is running at a full
> 233Mhz!

> Full credits to Cyrix for such a technogical achievement!

> My article has confused some, angered others, pleased Cyrix supporters and
> caused misunderstanding. But the benchmarks are real.

> So guys out there, it's your call. Intel or Cyrix. Up to you, depending on
> your evaluation criteria, price or performance. For people who insists on
> paying at most 400 bucks for a CPU, Intel is DEFINITELY OUT OF THE WAY, NOT
> AN OPTION, AND DOES NOT EVEN DESERVE CONSIDERATION! Trust me, there are
> such people in this world, I am them.

> I see no reason at all why I should spend 600 bucks on an Intel, when I can
> spend 300 bucks on a Cyrix, and use the other 300 bucks saved to get myself
> a Hercules 128/3D card.
>
> I'll try to post an extensive article on the Cyrix-Intel Rebel VS Empire
> War some time later.

> Regards.

> Cyrix All the Way
> and
> AMD I Love U

> ****************************************************************************
> *********************
> 2nd Dialogue between Bill "Anti-Cyrix" Culp and Kenny "Cyrix All the Way"
> Skywalker

> Bill Culp
> To Kenny Ng: Ok, so you like the Cyrix flavor of Intel competition, I like
> the K6 flavor better. No need to argue over that since both companies are
> going to make things a little more difficult for Intel. Since you are into
> the Cyrix side of things though I have a question for you. Does Cyrix have
> any plans to further develop the socket 7 motherboard spec? AMD, for
> example wants to offer a 300 MHZ solution for the socket 7 board with
> chipset support for SDRAM and AGP (sdram is already there) at the end of
> this year. Intel still hasn't released an SDRAM capable board for the PPRO
> or the Pentium II. When Intel finally does...the cheaper chips aren't going
> to be so close behind the Pentium II or PPro anymore since many of the
> "objective" benchmarks are comparing PPros and Pentium IIs with EDO ram to
> Pentiums running the VX or TX with SDRAM.So is Cyrix going to help out in
> the chipset war and invest in socket 7 development or just sit on the
> sidelines and see how well AMD and FIC do?Since you are impressed with
> Cyrix's developments you may also be interested as I am in IDT's entrance
> into the CPU market. IDT claims to be introducing a chip that is as fast as
> a 200 MHZ MMX CPU for between 100-150 dollars. If they succeed as they say
> they will this will be a huge accomplishment. They will be able to sell the
> chip this cheap because of an incredibly reduced die size. IDT may hurt
> Intel more than AMD and Cyrix combined if they do it right.After Intel has
> gone down...next target...Microsoft.Here's hoping Bill C:)

> Kenny Ng
> To Bill Culp:
> Kenny Skywalker Hailing from Tatooine.

> Have u read my reply to your reply to my previous review in PC Magazine?
> Sounds confusing enuff? : -)

> It's good to hear from u that at least u're going for the AMD K6. As long
> as u don't go for Intel Pentium II, I'm glad.

> I'm sure Cyrix will offer a 300-Mhz solution sooner or later. And I expect
> I can buy one in 1998 March-April.

> The reason why I'm so impressed with Cyrix is that its chip is running at
> only 188Mhz, whereas AMD and Intel are running at 233Mhz. This shows that
> Cyrix must have taken great pains to tune and design their chip
> architecture whereas AMD and Intel have to rely more on clock speeds to get
> the job done. And it may turn out that the AMD-INTEL approach of
> translating CISC to RISC like instructions is not as efficient as they
> think after all.

> I do admit that Cyrix isn't strong in FPU but the point I'm talking about
> now is its incredible performance at such a low clock speed of 188Mhz.
> Everyone should give Cyrix FULL CREDITS for that!

> IDT should give Intel a nasty shock if it manages to break into the
> American market successfully. I think it shouldn't have any problem in
> breaking into the Asia Pacific market. Already, quite a number of Asia
> Pacific vendors have pledged support for IDT. I do hope to see Tangent, Sys
> etc, flying IDT colors!

> When the C5 chip from IDT comes out, I'm sure all hell will break loose.
> And only complete morons will buy a Pentium MMX chip, which is now a
> completely obsolete CPU! ha, ha, this is my favorite sentence and everybody
> loves it!

> Intel, you had better have something better than Diablo when the forces of
> good are mobilising for the Final War before the millennium comes!

> From
> Cyrix All the Way
> and
> AMD I Love U

> Kenny Skywalker, Mankind's last and only hope in the fight against the
> Empire.

> Kenny Skywalker is now heavily engaged in molecular processor technology.
> His American lab, nicknamed Hercules 1, will be able to churn out 30
> million such processors in the year 2000 and he plans to sell each for a
> dirt cheap price of US$300-600, with at least 40-60 times the performance
> of an Intel Deschutes processor and 6-10 times faster than an Intel Merced
> processor. Intel have better get prepared for the worst.

> ****************************************************************************
> ***********************
> Dialogue between Neil "Tell Me Who is Cyrix" Harrington and Kenny "Cyrix
> All the Way" Skywalker

> > From: Neil Harrington <nharr...@earthlink.net>
> > Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
> > Subject: Re: Buy Cyrix. Not Intel. 2nd Edition.
> > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 1997 1:45 AM
> >
> > Kenny Ng <jus...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in article
> > <01bc797c$bb4e2ea0$1cb215a5@default>...
> >
> > > Quake in Windows 95
> > > Cyrix about 14.1 frames
> > > AMD 15.5 frames
> > > Intel 27 frames
> > >
> > > Tough call here. Cyrix is twice as cheap as Intel, and twice as slow.
> >
> > "Tough call here"? Intel is twice as fast, and that's a "tough call"?

> Kenny:
> "Tough call" to ME. Certainly not to power-users. Why is it "tough call"?
> Simple. Cyrix is TWICE as cheap. A very tempting buy.

> >
> > > NT Arena
> > > Business Winstone
> > > 6x86MXPR233 72.3
> > > Pentium II 78.4
> > >
> > > Cyrix is slower but again, twice as cheap. Conclusion: Cyrix is the
> > > best.
> >
> > Kenny, you keep doing this over and over. Cyrix is slower but a little
> > cheaper, therefore your conclusion is "Cyrix is the best" in every case
> > except those in which Cyrix is completely demolished by the competition,
> > and then it's a "tough call." This is a joke, right?

> Kenny:
> Cyrix is slower, but it is NOT a little cheaper. IT is A LOT cheaper than
> the
> Pentium II. It is selling for US$320 and the Pentium II is selling for
> US$600.
> Don't forget you still have to add a Intel P II motherboard that costs MUCH
> MORE than
> the conventional Socket 7 motherboard Cyrix and AMD are using. Add up the
> costs and you'll see why the Cyrix is not only a little cheaper, but a
> whole lot
> cheaper.

> >
> > We don't generally just buy a chip, we buy a whole computer. Saving a
> > hundred dollars or so and getting clearly inferior performance may make
> > sense to you, but it sure doesn't to me. Even if one is only upgrading
> the
> > processor (a dubious practice at best), for users of older systems that
> > will generally require a new motherboard as well. Thus the savings
> shrinks
> > still further as a percentage of total cost.

> Kenny:
> There's a price difference of 300 bucks between the Cyrix and the Intel and
> you call that little? Throw in another 100 bucks difference in the
> motherboards
> and we've got a 400-buck disadvantage for Intel.

> >
> >
> > > AND YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT CYRIX IS RUNNING AT ONLY 188MHZ here,
> > > compared to Intel running at a full 233Mhz! 5 stars rating for Cyrix
> for
> > > such a stunning technological breakthrough.
> >
> > That Cyrix *can't* run at 233 MHz, can it? It would if it could. Being
> > crippled speedwise is "a stunning technological breakthrough"?

> Kenny:
> Cyrix CAN run at higher than 200Mhz. Already, a 225-Mhz version is
> in the works, it should offer comparable performance to a PII 266 or PII
> 300.
> So the Cyrix is NOT crippled speedwise. There's no such thing as a Cyrix
> being unable to run at 200Mhz and above. It's just a matter of time.
> Besides, the Cyrix NEED NOT run at 233Mhz to compete with the Intel II 233.
> If Cyrix is running at 233Mhz, then we must compare it to an Intel II 266,
> not
> an Intel II 233.

> It puzzles me as to why the Cyrix should not be called a stunning
> technological
> breakthrough. Cyrix's 188-Mhz touches the performance range of Intel's
> 233-Mhz
> and you can't call it a breakthrough? If the Cyrix M2 is running at
> 233Mhz, then
> it's completely pointless to call it a "stunning technological
> breakthrough" then.
> Coz there's nothing great about Cyrix being on a par with the Pentium II as
> both
> clock speeds would be the same.
> But the FACT is Cyrix is running at 188Mhz and Intel is running at 233Mhz.
> Cyrix
> performance definitely touches the Intel Pentium II. What conclusion does
> it gives us?
> A more efficient CPU core (apart from FPU of course). Cyrix engineers does
> not
> believe in using brute force high speed CPU clocks like Intel or AMD. They
> use
> a different CPU architecture and succeeded in giving users performance
> comparable
> to the competition at LOWER clock speeds. THAT, IS A STUNNING
> TECHNOLOGICAL
> BREAKTHROUGH. To compare Cyrix at 233Mhz with Intel at 233Mhz would be
> pointless,
> as it does not mean a stunning technological breakthrough. Also, a Cyrix
> at 233Mhz would
> blow away an Intel Pentium II at 233Mhz as its performance would be closer
> to an Intel PII 266
> or Intel PII 300.

> >
> > > Imagine what would be the CPU mark 32 be if Cyrix is using 233Mhz clock
> > > speed,
> >
> > Yes, and imagine how high a frog could fly if only it had wings.

> Kenny:
> You argument is Cyrix CANNOT reach 233Mhz but that's your opinion. Ask
> around
> from knowledgeable Cyrix supporters or from Cyrix web site and you know
> that
> Cyrix is NOT a frog and it CAN run at 225Mhz and above.

> >
> > > Intel will come out with Kutmai MMX2 chip and Deschutes. So will
> Cyrix.
> >
> > Well, Intel will anyway. Cyrix may dream about doing such things, but it
> > doesn't seem likely it will ever catch up.

> Kenny:
> Actually, when we compare chips, we should compare two chips from two
> manufacturers at the same prices. THAT IS THE FAIREST METHOD.
> The Cyrix is priced at US$320. Which Intel chip is priced at or around
> US$320?
> The Intel Pentium 166 MMX. Compare these two and what conclusion do u get?
> I don't have to tell you coz u know which is better. The Cyrix 6x86MX-233
> or
> the Intel Pentium 166 MMX.
> The FACT is: CYRIX HAS ALREADY CAUGHT UP. The Cyrix 6x86MX-233
> simply blew the Intel Pentium 166 MMX into a thousand pieces.

> Regards.
> Kenny.

> > Neil

> ****************************************************************************
> **********************
> Dialogue between Doug "MMX Man" Zabel and Kenny "Cyrix All the Way"
> Skywalker

> Doug Zabel:

> Depends what you want to do.... If you're concerned with gaming
> performance, the Pentium MMX might make sense. Personaly, I think I
> might buy one. But not until the P200MMX falls to about $150....

> Kenny:
> I don't think buying a Pentium MMX makes sense, coz its now a completely
> obsolete CPU! Ha ha ha, my favorite quote again! The Pentium 166 MMX
> costs about the same or is priced similarly as the Cyrix 6x86MX 233. You
> know which is much faster overall.

> ****************************************************************************
> *************************
> Dialogue between Juho "Monster 3D Man" Ahola and Kenny "Cyrix All the Way"
> Skywalker

> Juho Ahola:

> so what you are saying is:
> pII is the fastest
> k6 is the second fastets
> m2 is the third fastest
> AND
> pII is the most expensive
> k6 is the second expensive
> m2 is the third expencive
> (of the selected croup)

> FUNNY HOW OPEN MARKET WORKS

> personaly I wont buy from a company that has 75%+ marketshare. I would just
> hope everyone would do the same. Quake framerate is a small sacriface. For
> those who it matters, the 3d cards make the difference obsolete. Show me
> the difference between 28 fps and 32 fps in glquake and I show you my a*s.

> Kenny:
> I suppose you're saying you won't buy from Intel, rite? In fact, Intel
> already
> has a 95% worldwide market share, and that's very worrying. I'll never buy
> from Intel again. Well said, Juho. Pair a 3D card with a Cyrix or AMD and
> we can't tell any difference between a Cyrix and an Intel. 3D cards are
> the
> saviours of Cyrix and AMD.

> ****************************************************************************
> *******************
> Dialogue between Mahmut "Go Intel Go!" Kursun and Kenny "Cyrix All the Way"
> Skywalker

> Mahmut Kursun replied:

> Kenny:
> > The previous 1st edition has generated considerable
> > controversies, particularly from a guy called Benson Chow.
> > He could have been more diplomatic in his reply. Instead,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Mahmut:
> Some people have a very close connectionship to their computers
> and they think it is like a pet and they say hello to the machine
> and "go baby", "now cmon" and stuff and if somebody say something
> bad about the machine that works well all the time, he's maybe
> saying the truth but it's no reason for the owner to accept that
> the machine has any disadvantage.

> Kenny:
> I think that if there are substantial evidence pointing out the fact
> that the Cyrix M2 is a superior chip than the Pentium Pro, the owner
> has to accept the fact whether he likes it or not. Of course, he
> still has the right to love his Pentium Pro. He still has the right to say
> "Good morning, Pentium Pro. How are you today?" He still has the
> right to say "go baby, boot Windows NT". He still has the right to say,
> "Now cmon, run CPU Mark 32 to show the world how great u're in
> 32-bit, baby". But regardless of how he thinks, the FACT remains that the
> Cyrix M2 is a superior chip than the Pentium Pro. Having MMX
> and being much cheaper are just two of the many reasons why the
> Cyrix is a superior chip.

> Mahmut:
> I would tell you just to report about the facts that you know,
> as long as I see you're not a "Quake player" or somebody that
> do fine tuning (overclocking) and you do not possess different
> Mainboards and different CPUs? You're always on the good side
> if you are talking about the facts that you archieved and if
> you try to beat the machine to the limits and report about
> that.

> Because everthing else is just a matter of different viewpoints.

> Kenny:
> Well said for the last sentence. All along in my review my
> criteria for choosing a chip is to get a chip that offers the best
> bang for the buck. I want to get the most for each of my dollar.
> For others, they want the best possible performance, and don't
> give a damn about price/performance ratio. They can buy Intel
> and I'll buy Cyrix coz Cyrix offers the most 32-bit power per dollar.

> Mahmut:
> Now I would like to be the Intel fan in this discussion and
> here's the facts that I archieved beating lots of Intel
> CPUs to the limits:

> a) You can always overclock Intel:
> I overclocked 286/287/386/387/RapidCAD/486/586/686s so far,
> in ranges of 15-75%, so I guess one can overclock the P-II

> Kenny:
> It's a well-known fact that AMD and Cyrix chips can be overclocked
> too, though maybe not as often as Intel. But the fact is, they CAN
> be overclocked.

> Mahmut:
> b) Cyrix/AMD are cheating since the first CPU they build:
> It is not 188, it is 75*2.5=187.5. If you have a close view,
> they cheated all of the time starting with the imitation of
> the Number 586/686 and selling 386' as 486' and 486' as 586'
> and 586' as 686' and cheating with speed numbers.
> This is nothing essential but makes them less trustfull
> than Intel.

> Kenny:
> I wouldn't care about naming policies. All I care about
> is getting a chip that offers the most bang for my buck.

> Mahmut:
> c) Only Intel CPUs do work in SMP environments:
> At least I heard that. I must also confess that I was reported
> that not all Intel CPUs are 100% SMP able. But anyway, as long
> as I see they're the only one to do that.

> Kenny:
> I'm not involved in SMP. So this is irrelevant to me.

> Mahmut:
> d) Intel = 0 trouble
> Intel works with everything.

> Kenny:
> I agree. Intel seems to have 100% compatibility with all software.
> But considering the fact that the Empire already has 95% worldwide
> market share, I'll still support Cyrix and AMD.

> Mahmut:
> I don't want to mock on AMD/Cyrix with this but I had more
> trouble with them and less trouble with Intel. That's luck.
> I heard from friends that they sell AMD K5 equipped Computers
> with satisfied customers but I also recieved some software trouble
> with AMD K5 my own. So if they come up with something new, I do
> not trust them straight.

> Kenny:
> It's a good policy not to rush out and buy any chip from Cyrix or AMD.
> The Cyrix 6x86 has some compatibility problems with software. But
> that doesn't mean the 6x86MX has the same amount of compatibility
> problems.

> ****************************************************************************
> *********
> Dialogue between Vladislav "Cyrix Soldier" V. Kornienko and Mahmut
> "Go Intel Go!" Kursun. Additional comments by Kenny "Cyrix All the Way"
> Skywalker.

> Vladislav V. Kornienko wrote:
> > >I thought price was always _the_ issue... If not, why are you even
> > >talking about intel-compatible chips when you can buy a HUGE
> > multi-cpu
> > >no-matter-the-cost? (ok, a bit exaggeration). My point is, a Cyrix
> > PR233
> > >shouldn't really be compared to a Pentium2 233, but an intel cpu at
> > SAME
> > >PRICE (mmx 166?). Then there would be no doubt about the benchmarks,
> > and
> >intel would be completely out of the deal.

> Kenny popped in and added:
> Well said, Vladislav. That was my prime reason for choosing Cyrix.
> Compare an Intel and a Cyrix chip at the same or similar price and we'll
> be looking at a Cyrix 6x86MX 233 and an Intel Pentium MMX 166. The Cyrix
> blows the Intel into a thousand pieces literally and instantly.

> Mahmut Kursun replied to Vladislav:
> > Yes, BUT: do you know, that p166MMX CAN work at 225Mhz without
> > problems? Some days ago I selects between K6-166 & P166MMX.
> > K6 can run only at 187 (75*2.5), but P166MMX - at 225!!!
> > So, the choice is clear, is it? I buy P166MMX ($60 _CHEAPER_ in local
> > store than K6-166) and use it an 225 (75*3) 4 days without any
> > problems.
> > (My friend also got P166->225 near 2 months ago...)
> > My point: CPUs MUST compared at WORKING, NOT MARKED speeds.
> >
> > The only bad thing here, that if people will by only Intel, Intel will
> >
> make worse & worse CPUs at higher prices...

> Again, Kenny popped in and added:
> Right, Mahmut. So don't buy Intel, for the sake of Mankind, and for the
> sake of Tatooine.

> Vladislav replied to Mahmut:
> and you really have no clue as to what you're talking about do you?
> we were talking about cyrix and intel in the post before. but, somehow,
> you changed it to amd and intel. NOW, if we could get back on the
> subject. the pr233+ from cyrix is at least as fast as a p 233 mmx
> chip. so, if i would overclock it, it would be much faster than your
> precious p166mmx at 225 mhz. you would have no chance. if i would o/c
> to 83 mhz x 2.5, i'd blow you out. really, you wouldn't rather have the
> pr2 233+ from cyrix at the same price as the p200 (or p166mmx), and get
> much better performance, or would you rather be sucked into intel's trap
> like millions of others that have no clue?

> Kenny popped in for the last time and added:
> Well said again, Vladislav, you're among the finest soldiers in the
> Cyrix-AMD
> Alliance. An overclocked Cyrix 6x86MX-233 will still blow away an
> overclocked
> Intel Pentium MMX 166. And the Cyrix will always be cheaper than the
> Intel.

> ****************************************************************************
> ***************
> > From: lutherjp <luth...@bellatlantic.net>
> > To: jus...@mbox2.singnet.com.sg
> > Subject: support..!!
> > Date: Saturday, July 05, 1997 12:30 AM
> >
> > Yea;
> > I'd purdhase cyrix over Intel anyday....you know even if you have a
> > bad or inferior product which cyrix doesn't the people sell the company
> > and the product's back up the people. good people good product no
> > matter what. if I work for a good company, my priide goes into the
> > product I'm producing...Bad company, bad executives, bad products.
> >
> > Cyrix all the way....

> Hello Lutherjp.

> Excellent.

> U know. I was about to launch one of the greatest thesis of all time,
> Cyrix VS AMD VS Intel. The Final Release - 4th Edition.
> "Buy Cyrix, not Intel- Here's Why" into the relevant newsgroups and
> into PC Magazine and Byte Magazine,

> and I receive the last minute support from you!

> Simply amazing and astounishing!

> I'm going to delay for a few minutes more just to include you into the
> article!

> Sounds really great? You bet! Keep a close lookout for this monumental
> thesis
> anytime now! Reply to me when you've seen it!

> Oh! And one more thing. Cyrix All the Way!

> "If only we have more soldiers like Vladislav and you!"
> From
> Cyrix All the Way
> and
> AMD I Love U
> Founder of the Cyrix-AMD Alliance

> LOOK AT THOSE CYRIX LOYALIST FORCES!
> Just wanted thank you for making a great processor at such an amazing
> price! I was the first of my friends to buy a Cyrix processor ... they all
> thought I was nuts. After seeing what it can do they have all UPGRADED to
> Cyrix PR200+ CPU's. Thanks again for such an amazing product! -- Alan M, 27
> June 97

> Thanks for the testimonial, Alan. We're beaming with pride.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cyrix #1 !!Just wanted to say how happy I have been with my Cyrix PR166+.
> When I was ready to upgrade I didn't even look at another chip maker. An
> now I'm a proud owner of Cyrix P200+ (with M Technology's Mustang-R534E
> System Board a great combo:), but after reading the reviews on the Cyrix
> 6x86MX(tm) Processor, It looks like I'll be looking into the PR233. I was
> so impressed with the price an performance of the Cyrix I made a web site
> dedicated to nothing but info on the Cyrix. -- thyde@, 27 June 97
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I bought a 6x86 P166+ system direct from Cyrix one year ago, and the
> performance has been amazing. The speed and price convinced one of my
> friends to upgrade his Pentium to a Cyrix processor. I've been able to stay
> up to speed this whole time... Keep up the great development. -- Jeff G, 26
> June 97
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> My new 6x86 166+ is the third generation Cyrix chip that I have enjoyed. --
> DJWALDON@, 26 June 97
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks a lot... You've got one loyal user right here! -- cgarriott@, 25
> June 97

> More evidence that customer loyalty runs deep in the Cyrix camp!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I just wanted to let you know that my CYRIX 6X86 200+ is a awesome chip!
> Please keep up the great work! -- yourusernamehere@, 25 June 97

> What is your user name, anyway? Thanks, whoever you might be.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is my third machine with a Cyrix processor. I am convinced that it
> represents better value than the comparable Intel processor. Everytime I
> have changed processors, I am amazed how much Cyrix has advanced. My
> supplier tells me that he says 10 to 1 Cyrix compared to the Intel! Thanks
> for such a good product. -- David K, 25 June 97

> Here's to hoping that every supplier would sell Cyrix products 10 to 1.
> Cheers!!!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Well, what can I say. These PR200+ machines are fast.. Overall, Nice, COOL
> & Delicious!! Keep it coming with the M2. Good work Cyrix.. -- osborn01@,
> 25 June 97

> How right you are.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I just wanted to say thanks for engineering the best price/performance
> chips on the market, my P200+ screams power!!! You've been #1 in my book
> since the 486 days and I'm dying to get my hands on the 6x86Mx 233. Keep on
> leading! -- sinewave@, 24 June 97

> Another diehard Cyrix fan. Bravo!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kudos! "I believe!!" I recently purchased the 6X86 200+gp chip and combined
> it with an ASUS P/I-p55t2p4 V3.10 MB. I am seriously impressed with your
> product. The speed and stability of your chip is what I have been searching
> for. I have managed to convince eight others to purchase the same chip with
> little difficulty; I merely show them my system running with your product!
> Thanks. -- Ken D, 24 June 97

> Thanks for the referrals!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Just wanted to let you know we are using a Cyrix 6x86 P166 for our FreeBSD
> web server. It runs great and we currently have 11 virtual hosts on the
> server using the Microsoft FrontPage server extensions. I was brought up on
> SUN Solaris and Sparc Stations, who needs them with a Cyrix. If you guys
> ever want to mention what web sites on the net are using Cyrix chips we
> would be more then happy to give you a great referral. -- Zack B, 23 June
> 97

> I think that you just gave one, Zack. Many thanks.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I ´d like to simply say that the Cyrix is the best , ´cause I´m user of a
> Cyrix P166 Processor and have no prblems with it. And now I´m thinking
> about 6x86MX processor. Good Luck Cyrix you are better than... -- adaxki@,
> 21 June 97

> We get the idea. Thanks for the support.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I own a 6x86 PR166+ system and a 6x86L PR200+ system. My friends love the
> affordiblity and speed of the Cyrix CPU and have me build Cyrix computers
> using the 6x86 for them. Cyrix fits into the tight budget of a college
> student. Can't wait for the 6x86MX PR-300. -- Scott B, 20 June 97

> CYRIX CORPORATE PROFILE

> Cyrix Corporation is a leading supplier of high-performance processors to
> the personal computer industry. The Company designs, manufactures and
> markets innovative, Windows®-compatible processors for the desktop computer
> market. Cyrix (CYRX) is a publicly traded company listed on NASDAQ.

> Since its founding in 1988, Cyrix has developed nine original processor
> architectures that are in millions of computers around the world. Our
> expertise in creating award-winning architectural designs positions Cyrix
> as a leading provider of innovative PC technologies and platforms.

> Smarter Processor Design
> Cyrix pioneered a smarter way to design high-performance processors. By
> developing unique microcode and advanced design techniques, Cyrix created a
> superior architectural model compatible with today's PC software.

> The Cyrix commitment to compatibility is particularly visible in our
> careful attention to design and prototype testing. Three exhaustive test
> stages run thousands of tests to establish, verify and demonstrate the
> compatibility of every Cyrix processor. With millions of its processors in
> use today, Cyrix is recognized for its expertise in creating compatible
> processor architectures.

> While Cyrix focuses on processor development, IBM Microelectronics and
> SGS-Thomson produce our silicon wafers. These strategic manufacturing
> relationships provide access to leading process technology and give Cyrix
> the added competitiveness and volume production capabilities needed to meet
> the growing demand for our high-performance processors.

> Product Overview
> Cyrix's first product was a math coprocessor tailored to speed through math
> calculations. The success of the math coprocessor line enabled Cyrix to
> deliver its first x86 microprocessors in 1992. The company moved quickly to
> develop a full line of 486 processors, a family of 386-to-486 upgrade CPUs,
> and the fifth-generation Cyrix 5x86™ processor, a CPU for mobile and
> desktop PC systems.

> The Cyrix 6x86™ Processor — Award-Winning Performance. In 1995, Cyrix
> introduced the sixth-generation 6x86™ processor. The 6x86™ processor
> overcomes significant architectural barriers such as data dependencies and
> resource conflicts to achieve a generational breakthrough in performance.

> The superscalar, superpipelined 6x86™ processor incorporates
> performance-enhancing techniques that avoid execution stalls and analyze
> more information faster.The 6x86™ processor, featuring performance levels
> up to PR200+, delivers compatible, award-winning performance running
> Windows® 95, Windows NT, Windows, OS/2®, UNIX® and other operating systems.
> Computers featuring the 6x86™ processor are widely available through the
> reseller channel and retail outlets worldwide.

> The Cyrix MediaGX™ Processor — For a New Class of PCs. The MediaGX™
> processor, introduced in February 1997, is a unique processor architecture
> that provides an innovative solution for the home PC market. It integrates
> the graphics and audio functions, the PCI interface and the memory
> controller right into the processor unit. The convergence of these
> functions into the MediaGX™ CPU reflects true system design innovation and
> intelligent integration.

> The MediaGX™ processor was conceived as a total system solution. Cyrix
> developed a reference platform to accelerate market acceptance for this new
> architecture and enable quick time-to-market for manufacturers.

> The introduction of the MediaGX™ processor signals the arrival of more
> affordable, user-friendly PCs: Computer manufacturers can now offer
> full-featured systems for less than $1000 to both the home and corporate PC
> markets.

> The Cyrix 6x86MX™ Processor — The Multimedia Experience. In June 1997,
> Cyrix introduced the high-performance, MMX™ enabled 6x86MX™ processor.
> Previously code-named the M2, the 6x86MX™ processor will deliver up to
> twice the performance of the 6x86™ processor on 32-bit applications. It
> will also offer the rich multimedia experience that consumers want: The
> 6x86MX™ processor is compatible with MMX technology and features a
> quadrupled (64-KByte) internal cache, enhanced memory management, and other
> architectural and performance features. These enhancements will enable the
> 6x86MX™ processor to deliver richer colors, high-resolution video and 3-D
> graphics at greater speeds than ever before. Additionally, the 6x86MX™
> processor is able to support new business communications technologies such
> as video conferencing and voice recognition software.

> Looking Ahead
> Throughout its history, Cyrix has excelled in engineering expertise. Our
> newest products continue this legacy and reinforce our position as a
> provider of innovative PC technologies and platforms. Looking ahead, we're
> prepared to provide the technology, support and leadership to give our
> customers an advantage in the marketplace while satisfying the
> ever-evolving PC needs of consumers and companies worldwide.

> CYRIX SENIOR MANAGEMENT

> Jay Swent
> Chair, Office of the President
> Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration

> Kevin McDonough
> Senior Vice President of Engineering

> Nancy Dechaud
> Vice President of Manufacturing

> Ken Edoff
> Senior Vice President of Sales

> Lew Paceley
> Vice President of Marketing

> Steve Tobak
> Vice President of Corporate and Channel Marketing

> Mark Bluhm
> Vice President of Strategic Planning and Business Development

> Robert Maher
> Vice President of Engineering

> Rick Rippeteau
> Vice President of Sales for the Americas

> Everett Roach
> Vice President of Sales, Asia/Pacific

> "Join the Cyrix-AMD Alliance, Mankind's Last and Only Hope Against the
> Empire" - From Kenny Skywalker, the Alliance's finest soldier.

--
Bill Broadley Bi...@math.ucdavis.edu UCD Math Sys-Admin
Linux is great. http://math.ucdavis.edu/~bill PGP-ok