rec.autos.simulators

by **John Simmon** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 01:30:51

> Deservedly so in your opinion. I'm guessing you live in your AMD world
> without any knowledge of building/using both systems?

> Charlie

> > On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:44:15 GMT, "Charlie Buscher"

> > >Tom Pabst of Toms Hardware is so biased towards AMD he feels he has to
> > >explain him self when questioned about it. Thats tells me somthing right
> > >there.

> > > Charlie

> > Most (maybe all) hardware review sites are pro AMD these days.
> > Deservedly so too.

Wow, let's talk about having blinders on. If it wasn't for AMD and
their similar/better peforming chips, we'd all be held hostage by
Intel's over-priced, and underpowered chips. I'd bet we'd still be
paying in excess of $1000 for a P3/750, and praying that they make a
breakthrough to 800mhx "real soon now"...

I probably would have selected a P4 over an AMD if they hadn't required
the use of Rambus memory (more expensive than regular simms). ***
intel.

One last thing, I've been building my own systems since the mid-80's, so
you can't use that lame-ass line on me. I switched to AMD on my most
recent system because a) no matter which brand I selected, I'd have to
buy a new motherboard and memory too, b) the AMD solution was just as
fast as the Intel, and c) it was less expensive to build by several
hundred dollars.

If you really want to know the truth, all these proprietary instruction
sets are exactly the reason drivers and games are so un-***in reliable.
The hardware manufacturers draw us in and this is what perpetuates the
endless stream of screwed up hardware and "compatible" software. We're
all just lemmings who have decided which cliff to jump off of, and no
one cliff is better than any other cliff - the end is the same.

--
=========================================================
Redneck Techno-Biker & "programming deity"
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

DeMONS/1 for Nascar Racing 3 & Nascar Legends
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

DeMONS/2 for Nascar Racing 4 (in development)
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Barbarian Diecast Collector (460+ cars and counting)
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

If you want to send me email, go to the first URL shown
above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame.
=========================================================

by **Charlie Busche** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 02:25:47

Hi John,

>Wow, let's talk about having blinders on. If it wasn't for AMD and
>their similar/better peforming chips, we'd all be held hostage by
>Intel's over-priced, and underpowered chips. I'd bet we'd still be
>paying in excess of $1000 for a P3/750, and praying that they make a
>breakthrough to 800mhx "real soon now"...

Just because they are the competitor I should choose AMD? When did Bill
Gates come into the equation?

Potty mouth? Yes. Propriatary? Yes. Better performance? Yes. More expensive?
YES

You get what you pay for, I promise you the FPS difference in TODAYS
sims/games is nominal especially when considering other factors.

...and the truth comes out. I dont feel like I've jumped off of any cliff.
Maybe you wouldnt feel that way if you bought the P4.<G> I was at Sea World
the other day, a guy blows a whistle and Sea Lions come out of the water,
clap their "hands", and "bark". One of them even played a song w/ some
horns just like the cartoons, to top it all off another one came out halfway
through and did accompaniment.

Harlie

by **Charlie Busche** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 02:27:07

Thats Charlie rather.

by **Bill and Ben, the flower pot men** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 02:32:31

On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 16:10:00 GMT, "Charlie Buscher"

> Deservedly so in your opinion. I'm guessing you live in your AMD world
>without any knowledge of building/using both systems?

> Charlie

Wrong***head! I have both Intel and AMD here to use, I have built
both systems. My opinion is an educated one, your's is that of an
ignorant zealot.

by **Charlie Busche** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 03:03:15

LOL! I see. I'm the ignorant one. Why dont we make some valid points rather
than your opinions that I'm a puppet,***head and/or not educated using AMD
and Intel 1ghz+ systems w/ a wide variety of software. Do you edit video?
Use CAD programs? How about just photoshop or Fireworks? Cmon you can tell
me, im just an ignorant zealot.

Charlie

> On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 16:10:00 GMT, "Charlie Buscher"

> > Deservedly so in your opinion. I'm guessing you live in your AMD world
> >without any knowledge of building/using both systems?

> > Charlie

> Wrong***head! I have both Intel and AMD here to use, I have built
> both systems. My opinion is an educated one, your's is that of an
> ignorant zealot.

by **Thom j** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 04:54:23

Wow Bill and Ben, did we wake up on the wrong side today?
Does not seem like the type of re: you'd send.. more like me!
Yikes.. "O" well have a good day & if not I have extra meds
for this kind of thing.. :o) de Me

| Wrong***head! I have both Intel and AMD here to use, I have built
| both systems. My opinion is an educated one, your's is that of an
| ignorant zealot.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.racesimcentral.net/).
Version: 6.0.264 / Virus Database: 136 - Release Date: 7/2/2001

by **Rafe McAulif** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:06:51

Eric, you say that WSC will support SSE2 instructions...will it also
support the original SSE instructions (which Athlons DO support as
well)?

If so, then everybody will be happy.

Rafe Mc

>Ben, what I refer is the fact that Intel "promotes" there own toy by supplying
>devs with P4, software to implement SSE2 and technical support, Nvidia does the
>same, 3DFX did the same. Those who don't do it (in WSC case) is AMD and MAC ->
>this is general in computers, MAC simply don't take this route at all.. The dev
>have to pay to get there product to support it. So that's why I say it's AMD
>fault, by not playing the same game as Intel. You can't blame Intel for this,
>they invest in software devs so devs use SSE/SSE2 then the software runs better
>with it. With SSE between this and 3DNow and the fact that AMD CPU are faster in
>that category. The actual difference is in favor of AMD. But with SSE2, and it
>has been proven and tested by Tom's hardware using Mpeg-4 compression software ,
>the balance goes towards SSE2 and the fact that bandwith wise, P4 are
>untouchable.

>There's also the fact that Nvidia uses now enhanced instruction from SSE2? for
>there drivers starting with detonator 12.10 that really helps the P4.

>The bottom line is, if a software is enhanced with SSE2, then the P4 takes the
>lead. If the software is not, then it's AMD and which is the case now for the
>vast majority of software present today.

>I have chat with a lot's of people on the subject lately and some of them seems
>to panic at the fact that WSC will have enhance SSE2 instruction built in,
>thinking there AMD won't be able to run at all. This is simply not the case, WSC
>will work well with P3 (733 Mhz and up is preferable) and better with AMD (sheer
>speed of the processor) But will run even better with SSE2 enhanced CPU, which
>is P4 right now, until AMD comes out with the Hammer CPU.

>So there's no need to panic...

>Btw I've read Tom's hardware tech stuff on the subject, and back in Nov 2000, I
>did an interview with Chris on this (and DX8) and the article is right there :

>http://www.simracingmag.com/wsc/articles/00q4/wsc_interview_1.shtml

>So this is not "new news" at all

>Eric

>> >Doug and all... it's SSE2 enhanced.. about AMD... that's there fault.. they
>> >don't provide developers with chips.. so devs have to use Intel..

>> >Eric

>> You sure AMD is to blame?

>> http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q2/010514/palomino-04.html

>> AMD's pendant was first '3DNow!' of K6-2 and K6-3 and later the
>> 'Enhanced 3DNow!' of Athlon. These AMD-specific SIMD-instructions
>> proved pretty much just as powerful as Intel's SSE, but AMD continued
>> to have a rather hard time to make software developers implement code
>> with those instructions. Due to Intel's influence in the business and
>> the big success of Pentium III, the implementation of SSE in current
>> software is much more common than 3DNow!-support.

by **Bill and Ben, the flower pot men** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 13:06:00

On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 17:27:07 GMT, "Charlie Buscher"

>> Harlie

> Thats Charlie rather.

I thought it was you in drag.

by **Bill and Ben, the flower pot men** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 13:08:49

On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 18:03:15 GMT, "Charlie Buscher"

>LOL! I see. I'm the ignorant one. Why dont we make some valid points rather
>than your opinions that I'm a puppet,***head and/or not educated using AMD
>and Intel 1ghz+ systems w/ a wide variety of software. Do you edit video?
>Use CAD programs? How about just photoshop or Fireworks? Cmon you can tell
>me, im just an ignorant zealot.

> Charlie

Some comon sense for you, this is a *** group so I would think
discussions on cpu's would pertain to which is the best for ***. Eh
wot? But, I do use Photoshop.

by **Bill and Ben, the flower pot men** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 13:11:42

Oh, I'm capable of the most dispicable of tirades at times. If you
knew my complete posting history under various handles you would
understand that. Someone forgot to water us today!

by **Bill and Ben, the flower pot men** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 13:13:48

>Eric, you say that WSC will support SSE2 instructions...will it also
>support the original SSE instructions (which Athlons DO support as
>well)?

>If so, then everybody will be happy.

>Rafe Mc

T-Birds only support some (11?) SSE instructions, Palomino supports
all, Hammer will have SSE2.

by **Rafe McAulif** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 13:14:00

Two points here. It is widely known that AMD chips are faster in
perhaps 70% of games/benchmarks/any other shit they want to test with,
and P4's are faster in maybe 30%. So to say that p4's have better
performance is BS, nothing more. If all you're going to do is play Q3,
then the P4 is for you.

Second is that yes, Intel is more expensive. No argument there. Is
that a good point for you? It's more expensive, therefore it's better?

So that's why most people in the know will choose AMD, in general. And
why AMD is growing at such a huge rate from the small, insignificant
competition it once was. Same story for Nvidia vs 3dFX, evolution says
that the strong soon fall if the competitors have the edge over them
(by a fair margin as well).

Rafe Mc

by **Eric Cot** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:06:19

ohh think there's a misconception here... WSC actually supports SSE instruction and?
will be SSE2 enhanced, since WSC runs aleady on P3 mid speed system :)

Eric

> Eric, you say that WSC will support SSE2 instructions...will it also
> support the original SSE instructions (which Athlons DO support as
> well)?

> If so, then everybody will be happy.

> Rafe Mc

> >Ben, what I refer is the fact that Intel "promotes" there own toy by supplying
> >devs with P4, software to implement SSE2 and technical support, Nvidia does the
> >same, 3DFX did the same. Those who don't do it (in WSC case) is AMD and MAC ->
> >this is general in computers, MAC simply don't take this route at all.. The dev
> >have to pay to get there product to support it. So that's why I say it's AMD
> >fault, by not playing the same game as Intel. You can't blame Intel for this,
> >they invest in software devs so devs use SSE/SSE2 then the software runs better
> >with it. With SSE between this and 3DNow and the fact that AMD CPU are faster in
> >that category. The actual difference is in favor of AMD. But with SSE2, and it
> >has been proven and tested by Tom's hardware using Mpeg-4 compression software ,
> >the balance goes towards SSE2 and the fact that bandwith wise, P4 are
> >untouchable.

> >There's also the fact that Nvidia uses now enhanced instruction from SSE2? for
> >there drivers starting with detonator 12.10 that really helps the P4.

> >The bottom line is, if a software is enhanced with SSE2, then the P4 takes the
> >lead. If the software is not, then it's AMD and which is the case now for the
> >vast majority of software present today.

> >I have chat with a lot's of people on the subject lately and some of them seems
> >to panic at the fact that WSC will have enhance SSE2 instruction built in,
> >thinking there AMD won't be able to run at all. This is simply not the case, WSC
> >will work well with P3 (733 Mhz and up is preferable) and better with AMD (sheer
> >speed of the processor) But will run even better with SSE2 enhanced CPU, which
> >is P4 right now, until AMD comes out with the Hammer CPU.

> >So there's no need to panic...

> >Btw I've read Tom's hardware tech stuff on the subject, and back in Nov 2000, I
> >did an interview with Chris on this (and DX8) and the article is right there :

> >http://www.simracingmag.com/wsc/articles/00q4/wsc_interview_1.shtml

> >So this is not "new news" at all

> >Eric

> >> >Doug and all... it's SSE2 enhanced.. about AMD... that's there fault.. they
> >> >don't provide developers with chips.. so devs have to use Intel..

> >> >Eric

> >> You sure AMD is to blame?

> >> http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q2/010514/palomino-04.html

> >> AMD's pendant was first '3DNow!' of K6-2 and K6-3 and later the
> >> 'Enhanced 3DNow!' of Athlon. These AMD-specific SIMD-instructions
> >> proved pretty much just as powerful as Intel's SSE, but AMD continued
> >> to have a rather hard time to make software developers implement code
> >> with those instructions. Due to Intel's influence in the business and
> >> the big success of Pentium III, the implementation of SSE in current
> >> software is much more common than 3DNow!-support.

by **Charlie Busche** » Mon, 23 Jul 2001 23:59:17

I was referring to the RAMBUS memory.

Charlie

by **Bill and Ben, the flower pot men** » Tue, 24 Jul 2001 02:03:12

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:59:17 GMT, "Charlie Buscher"

>I was referring to the RAMBUS memory.

> Charlie

Keep up Charlie.

Thanks to Quixfire for this one ! A new version of Sandra's utility
suite benchmark shows that DDR SDRAM may be considerably more
efficient when transferring data to the CPU than RDRAM.

However, what is important to notice is that using the new, enhanced
version of the Sandra bandwidth benchmark yields more than a 100%
increase in performance for the Athlon / DDR SDRAM combo but less than
a 50% gain for the Pentium 4. Using the older version of Sandra, the
reference scores for the Intel / PC800 RDRAM platform was 1,374 MB/s,
while the AMD760 / PC2100 DDR SDRAM system is only 652 MB/s.

The reason why the DDR SDRAM platform performed so poorly on the older
version of Sandra was due to architectural differences between the
Athlon and the Pentium 4. To put this statement in better perspective,
the Pentium 4 has many architectural tweaks to deliver maximum
bandwidth, but sometimes has to pay for these measures. A few
differences are explained in our recent nForce article.

Unfortunately, some in the media have tried to compare DDR SDRAM and
Rambus RDRAM performance without considering these innate processor
architectural differences (on an equally sad note, some in the media
like ExtremeTech have uncritically reported bandwidth for the Pentium
4 that is physically impossibile -- older versions of Sandra had a
well known bug that resulted in SSE2 enhanced FPU bandwidth tests to
be off by a factor of two and well beyond the 3.2 GB/s physical limits
of the platform

rec.autos.simulators

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??

Is WSC supposed to run faster on a P4 than a athlon ??