if this will really improve over my Cyrix 486-dx2/80? I was told that the 5x86-133
was comparable to a Pentium 90 or so. Any feedback?
Craig Marcho
Craig Marcho
> I am contemplating upgrading to an AMD 5x86-133mhz motherboard, and was wondering
> if this will really improve over my Cyrix 486-dx2/80? I was told that the 5x86-133
> was comparable to a Pentium 90 or so. Any feedback?
> Craig Marcho
In reality (at least for games) 133mhz is 133mhz. I have a P90 with 64
megs of RAM and a 5x86-133 with 16 megs. The AMD 133 is smoother by a
noticable amount in games like Nascar, Indycar II, Descent.
THis can mean only one thing.... Games (as of today - I make no
promise of tomorrow) don't care if you're dual-pipelined, nor are they
generally hindered by a slower hard drive.... (or even a cheap video
card). Most of what we are discussing load the program into memory and
then try to generate as much detail as possible, 20-30 times a second so
you can get "smooth frame rate".
Before someone gets on me for the slow hard drive crack..... Yes, a slow
hard disk will make the game load slower and take longer between
"levels" or "tracks" or "sessions" or whatever you do.
Just for a test, I've run Nascar on a fast computer with an old MFM
Seagate 251 hard drive. (40 MB, slow as a turtle). Only the load
times were affected.
So, my advice is yes, buy the 133. Spend money on processor speed and
sufficient RAM. The rest is insignificant in comparison and not nearly
as much bang for the buck.
Mike -(who still runs old hard disks on his AMD 133)
> ...
> This can mean only one thing.... Games (as of today - I make no
> promise of tomorrow) don't care if you're dual-pipelined, nor are they
> generally hindered by a slower hard drive.... (or even a cheap video
> card). Most of what we are discussing load the program into memory and
> then try to generate as much detail as possible, 20-30 times a second so
> you can get "smooth frame rate".
I should admit, the Matrox MGA Ultima II was known to stink at DOS performance (had
to load ram-resident VESA support), 'though its MSWin performance was quite good...
pwb
>> ...
>> This can mean only one thing.... Games (as of today - I make no
>> promise of tomorrow) don't care if you're dual-pipelined, nor are they
>> generally hindered by a slower hard drive.... (or even a cheap video
>> card). Most of what we are discussing load the program into memory and
>> then try to generate as much detail as possible, 20-30 times a second so
>> you can get "smooth frame rate".
>My experience re: graphics cards can differ GREATLY, at least in one instance.
>On my P90, my Matrox MGA Ultima II I was running was dog slow w/ ICR II. Popped in a
>Hercules Graphite Terminator - instant, dramatic boost in frame rate (both cases, all
>detail on). The increment going up to a P133 was not so nearly impressive.
>I should admit, the Matrox MGA Ultima II was known to stink at DOS performance (had
>to load ram-resident VESA support), 'though its MSWin performance was quite good...
>pwb
Karl
Maybe, but what do YOU consider a reasonable price?<G>
I am NOT paranoid. And why are you always watching me?!?
Eldred Pickett
===================================
Well, there you go.
Your mileage may vary.
I guess it all depends on what you upgrade from...
:-)
>> Karl
>Maybe, but what do YOU consider a reasonable price?<G>
>I am NOT paranoid. And why are you always watching me?!?
>Eldred Pickett