rec.autos.simulators

Drivers:

It looks like thier a new engine in town for the racing simulations
with availability of the new AMD's K6-233MMX.  The K6 appears to
be better than the INTEL PENTIUM PRO with any measurements used.

We can't wait here at the IVGA as we expect our K6-233MMX any day
to complete our testing.  But simply put we like the AMD K6 because:

        1).     25% the cost of a INTEL PENTIUM PRO 200-MMX

        2).     Up to 4 Times as much cache and it starts at
                512K, where the INTEL 512K as impossible to
                get..

        3).     Currently supports MMX out of the box..

        4).     Runs circles around the INTEL PENTIUM PRO.

        5).     With the VIA and AMD-640 Chip set will
                support 75, 83 and 100MHZ bus speeds

        6).     Supports the SDRAM.

Its truly the first:

        1).     300Mhz Processor
        2).     100Mhz Bus
        3).     100Mhz Memory Speed.

Now for what a couple of other people are saying...

Check out the link at the RACEROCK - AUTO-SIMULATION GATEWAY

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Don Wilshe, IVGA

===================================================================
AMD-K6(TM) MMX Processor

Here's What They're Saying...

     "In side-by-side comparisons, it [the AMD-K6 processor] equaled and
even bested equivalent Intel machines on our Winstone
     benchmark. What's more, the K6 is equipped from day one with MMX...
Even better, the K6 exhibits none of the Pentium Pro's
     lackadaisical behavior running 16-bit code..."
     --Bill Machrone, PC Week.

     "It's going to be huge," said Toby Grace, president of Computer 1,
a large seller of PC's and components in Austin. "The K6 is
     an awesome chip. Intel is shaking in its boots."
     --Austin American Statesman

     "...An Exceptionally Strong Comptetitor...."
     --Computer World

     "AMD's K6 Beats Intel...."
     --San Jose Mercury News

     "K6 Is World's Fastest x86 Chip"
     --Linley Gwennap, Microprocessor Report

     "...A serious competitive challenge to Intel..."
     --Los Angeles Times

     "..There's a ton of money to be saved by going with the K6...."
     --Nathan Brookwood, (Dataquest for c/net)

     "AMD is poised... to become the most significant alternate to Intel
in 1997. At 8.8 million transistors, AMD's K6 is the most
     complex of the next-generation designs... With a compact,
high-performance design, lots of fab capacity, strong sales and
     support, and multiple design teams, AMD should be in a strong
position."
     --Michael Slater, Microprocessor Report

================================================================

Ok, Dave Sparks and Eric Busch what do you think of the K6????

--                        

Cheers,
Richard

p7 600mhz is running fine.  I hope intel releases them soon and
maybe the AMD thing will give them a push..  

Don Wilshe, IVGA

The Problem with the P7 is you cant use sound cards or gamecards
at that bus speed

( reduced )

i would like to add AMD K6 is also great for barbecue.
Leave your steak on it while you play your favourite game.
Steak should be ready in 30mins. ( tops )

Cheers!
John

Problem w/ p7 is that you can't use ISA soundcards or gamecards (or many
modems for that matter) w/ them succesfully due to bus speed timing
problems.  The new generation of upcoming PCI 2.1 compliant cards of these
types should fill in the gap by the time Intel decides that the P7 is
ready, though.
  Micha

Sorry, Don, but your insistence that you've tested this chip really makes
me wonder about everything else you've said. Given the timescales I find
it difficult to believe that anything other than a few early prototypes
exist. And anyone getting their hands on those would not be so stupid as
to break the terms of the inevitable NDA.

I still don't know what you "tested" (and to be honest, I don't think you
do either <g>), but a 600MHz P7? No way!

I really would like to believe you on this one, but.....

Cheers,
Richard

Don, whoever wrote that is labouring under the misapprehension that is is a
GOOD thing to be complex. Although both "Pentium II" and K6 are made using
a CMOS process, there the similarity ends.

- Intel uses a 0.28m CMOS process and AMD use a 0.35m process. This finer
line geometry helps Intel reduce heat and more easily achieve higher clock
speeds.

- Intel's design uses a four layer process but AMD has used a FIVE layer
process and a smaller die size. While this helps them minimise costs (more
die per 200mm substrate), both those facts will again increase heat and be
a problem for increasing clock speed.

- K6 has a slower FPU than Intel. No big deal unless you're a Quake fan.

- Initial reports are that MMX is slower than Intel's although based upon
the same implementation (Cyrix developed their own for the M2, a lot of
features of which will be in Intel's MMX2).

The main problem though is speed. Although initial benchmarks show the K6
as being equal to or slightly ahead of Intel, the benchmarks don't address
MMX effectively and so cannot give a true "like with like" comparison.
Regardless of that, the point we come back to is that the one advantage the
K6 has over Intel is pric. That's it, pure and simple. Now the price can be
changed with a flick of Gordon Moore's pen, so where would that leave AMD?
From the enormous profits of 386, 486 and Pentium, Intel easily have the
finances for a prolonged price war, and what's more they have around twenty
well established production facilities churning out top quality devices.
AMD.....don't. they have neither the finances nor the fab space that Intel
have, having cancelled a lot of investments during the market slump in
1996.

Well, I don't know about them but I'm certainly*** on to see what
Intel's riposte will be before declaring my undying love for all things
AMD. Things could get pretty interesting between these two, and even more
so when Cyrix join the party. I hope it will lead to lower prices and three
equally competing products but somehow I can't see it. What AMD will most
likely do is stop Intel charging the customary enormous premium for newly
introduced MPUs, but as to whether they'll make any real market penetration
is waaaaay up in the air at present.

Cheers!
John

John:

Thanks for the input, But I thought TOM HARDWARE
reported the FPU on the K6-200 faster than the
INTEL.. I might be wrong as usaul..

Don Wilshe, IVGA

I am Sorry:

I went back and read the article and the FPU is not
as good..  Your right and thanks for input!!!

Don Wilshe

(stuff deleted)

Interesting post, John.
Have you read the comparison on Tom's Hardware Page?
I just skimmed over it (I have a passing interest in this, but there
is just too much of a furor to get much in the way of straight facts),
and I thought I saw him mention that the K6 beats Intel at MMX using
Intels own MMX benchmark.

I play Quake, but my main concern with the K6 will be its ability to
run N2 and ICR2 in DMA modes. Heard anything on that?

--                        

On Tue, 08 Apr 1997 15:17:00 GMT, "John Wallace"

Discounting FPU performance as "only relevant to scientists" is
anachronistic...

----Jim Sokoloff

Richard:

All you have to do is call me..  You want to see one!!!

Don