No thanks Don, Fab-10 is a lot closer. I'll ask Intel next time I
speak to them ;-)
Cheers!
John
No thanks Don, Fab-10 is a lot closer. I'll ask Intel next time I
speak to them ;-)
Cheers!
John
It's not as good, but at least for now it's a truckload cheaper so
worth getting e***d about. Still, Intel quarterly price cuts are due
soon, let's see what they do. AMD won't hit the market yet in volume
so Intel will probably maintain their higher pricing. Expect fireworks
when AMD get Fab-25 ramped and start shipping this puppy in volume.
Cheers!
John
> >John Wallace : I am Sorry:
> >I went back and read the article and the FPU is not
> >as good.. Your right and thanks for input!!!
> It's not as good, but at least for now it's a truckload cheaper so
> worth getting e***d about. Still, Intel quarterly price cuts are due
> soon, let's see what they do. AMD won't hit the market yet in volume
> so Intel will probably maintain their higher pricing. Expect fireworks
> when AMD get Fab-25 ramped and start shipping this puppy in volume.
> Cheers!
> John
I am now into another performance group and they say take the
hundreds of dollars in saving and buy a VOODOO based assist
board and you will really have the best combo... What do
you think... I am testing my first K6-233.. Looks like I
can push it fine to K6-262 at 83mhz
don wilshe
>In other words, it's just the clockspeed helping out the PII..
The bottom line to me (and I presume to over 99% of the desktop CPU
market) is "how fast is the chip vs how much it costs?" The underlying
technology, while interesting, is completely secondary.
---Jim
v's compatability, v's "what's around the corner", v's probable
lifetime, v's required speed, v's disposable income, v's advertising
hype, v's, v's.....
There's an awful lot to take into account over purely speed and cost.
On that premise (and the demand of games set apart) a 486-133 would
power virtually every PC on earth.
Cheers!
John
Anyway, time to go watch the closing holes at Augusta. Wonder if a
European will do it again this year? ;)
Cheers!
John
<snip>
Is Tiger Moving? Lol :-]
>>The bottom line to me (and I presume to over 99% of the desktop CPU
>>market) is "how fast is the chip vs how much it costs?"
>v's compatability, v's "what's around the corner", v's probable
>lifetime, v's required speed, v's disposable income, v's advertising
>hype, v's, v's.....
>There's an awful lot to take into account over purely speed and cost.
>On that premise (and the demand of games set apart) a 486-133 would
>power virtually every PC on earth.
Side Note: IMO, the 486 has been so left behind in speed, that what it
costs is almost irrelevant.
---Jim
Gotta cut down that wine consumption...
GLquake doesn't add to my latency over my ISDN line. I use GLquake
to play netquake quite a bit. Of course I use QW more often now,
but as soon as GLquakeworld is out, I will be using that also.
Also, on news.3dfx.com there have been numerous posts about GLquake
with the K6. From the posts there the K6 is _slower_ than an equal
clocked Pentium in GLquake. The K6 also has much slower "wizmark"
scores which is 3DFX's own benchmark program to test 3D cards. It
is quite a bit slower in Wizmark actually. Wizmark uses "Glide"
which is the native 3DFX API. Glide is heavily FPU based. You
can figure the rest out on your own.
rj
--
sig? I don't need no stinkin sig
Yes, I think probably your ISDN line is too slow to be able to sense the
difference through gameplay, although I guarantee you that it DOES make a
difference. I play either over a LAN (four NICs directly connected) or over
the internet using a firect SuperJANET connection, and GLQuake adds 33% to
the latency. Now this seems like nothing when you're talking about a
latency of 33ms compared to 44ms with GLQuake, but every time I play
Gib_McNailz (a good friend and clan member) we are never more than a couple
of frags apart. As soon as he switches GLQuake I whip his ***every time,
easily beating him. Once or twice can be ascribed to luck or coincidence,
but this happens time and time again. I'm running P-200MMX at 225Mhz so
it's certainly not because the system can't handle it - the change is
purely down to the addition of GLQuake.
In deathmatch response time is infinitely more important than pretty
graphics, far more so than in sims, and if GLQuake is perceptably slower
than normal Quake then only losers will use it.
So what are you saying? The K6's FPU performance versus Intel's is well
known by now, this is no surprise news. However, remember that AMD and
Intel both use the same crippled implementation of MMX, which restricts
switching between MMX based instructions and FPU. With all of the hype
about MMX and marketing possibilities of sticking MMX on a box, more
developers will be pushed toward MMX than FPU.
After all the arguing has been made, what is left is that the K6 is going
to be sold on price, and price alone. Intel currently has some 85% of the
WORLD microprocessor market, and because of that they are always going to
be considered the standard for compatability, speed, desirability,
whatever. Anything else is a second-best compromise and will be chosen
based upon price/performance ratio. Comparing the performance of the K6
against the equivalent Intel CPU is meaningless if you don't consider
price. Look at the K6 against the equally priced Intel offering and then
come back and complain if it's slower.
Cheers!
John