rec.autos.simulators

by **Clark Arch** » Wed, 15 May 1996 04:00:00

>> And this from a P-150!
>
>Have you tried overclocking to 166Mhz? A P-150 is not a good chip since
>it uses 60Mhz bus and 30Mhz PCI bus - P-166 uses 66/33 respectively and
>is consequently much faster. P-150 is still a helluva processor, just
>that it is only a little faster than a 133, whereas a 166 is a lot
>faster than a 150.
>
>Cheers!
>John

I've thought about overclocking (my MB is good for 200Mhz, it claims), but I'm
not sure it's worth the risk of melting the processor or getting data errors
(I also use my machine as a development workstation). I am looking to get a
P-166 chip and drop it in instead thought. :)

Clark

by **Scott Wills** » Wed, 15 May 1996 04:00:00

>>Did you ask MPS about what kind of system one need to run GP2 perfectly?
>>Does P166 with 32MB EDO RAM, stealth 2MB VRAM and pipeline burst cache
>>good enough? If not, I am going to wait a bit longer to replace my P60.

>No, I did'nt ask, but I still have my doubts as to the real merits of
>the new Pentium Pros (the new Pentiums running above 133Mhz). As to
>the video card, I have a Diamond Stealth 64 Video VRAM, and I am VERY
>impressed by it.

A Pentium Pro is NOT, I repeat, NOT a Pentium running above 133 mhz. It is a
seperate design and is optimized for 32-bit software. Pentiums (not pro)
currently come in speeds up to 166 mhz and will soon include speeds up to 200
mhz. Pentium Pros come in 150MHz, 166MHz, 180MHz and 200MHz speeds, according
to Intel's web page.

As for the merits or not, I will be quite happy to trade my 133 mhz processor
for a 200 mhz one in a few months.

Scott

by **Scott Wills** » Wed, 15 May 1996 04:00:00

>I've thought about overclocking (my MB is good for 200Mhz, it claims), but I'm
>not sure it's worth the risk of melting the processor or getting data errors
>(I also use my machine as a development workstation). I am looking to get a
>P-166 chip and drop it in instead thought. :)

>Clark

Why not wait for the 200 mhz processor? Right now the price/performance
difference between a 150 and a 166 (or even a 133 for that matter) don't really
make it a good deal. If you were buying a new computer because you didn't have
one, I'd say go for the 166, but not if you already have a 150...

Have fun.

Scott

by **torg..** » Wed, 15 May 1996 04:00:00

>>I don't know about you guys, but I don't like the way things are going
>>with the latest games. I bought my P-120 six months ago, and already
>>the processor (the rest of my machine is OK) is obsolete.

>Too right, just wait till Win95 games become the norm..... :(((( P-Pro
>200Mhz all round I think.

>It's all a big ***....

As Windows 95 is a 16/32 bit system it will not make use of the extra speed of the Pentium Pro
chip. It has in fact been slower in tests on the Pentium-Pro than on a ordinary Pentium.
You will need a REAL 32 bit system like OS/2, NT, Unix o.l to take advantage of the
extra potential in the Pentium-Pro processor. IOW, win95 games will not drive us towards
Pentium Pros but the new Pentium processor with new multimedia functions to be released
from Intel.

Torgeir

by **Stuart Boo** » Thu, 16 May 1996 04:00:00

>Too right, just wait till Win95 games become the norm..... :(((( P-Pro
>200Mhz all round I think.

>It's all a big ***....

Too right. Have you seen the price difference between P166+ capable
motherboards and PPro200's? Ack! Still waiting...

Stuart

--
Stuart Booth
Somewhere in Godalming, England, UK!!!

by **C Sh** » Thu, 16 May 1996 04:00:00

=> On Sun, 12 May 1996 16:30:18 +0100, John Wallace
=>
=> >Given that you can't actually get anything better without being utterly
=> >ripped off by Intel, I think a P-166 with 32Mb EDO would be the one to
=> >buy.
=> > Skip the 2Mb VRAM though - remember that although GP2 will work
=> >under Win95, it is NOT a Win95 program. It is optimised for DOS, and
=> >therefore DRAM cards will work best. Best ones are the Stealth 64 and
=> >Hercules, based upon the Ark2000 chipset.
=>
=> The Stealth 64 is a VRAM card (?), I have one. I am very impressed
=> with it's performance both on DOS and Windows 95.

You get stealth in EDO DRAM and VRAM

by **John Wallac** » Thu, 16 May 1996 04:00:00

Yes, I was being facetious..... ;)

John

_________________________________
__ _____| |_____ __
_________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |_________

\ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | /
> :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | <
/ :|__|::|____:/ Sim Racing News \.____|::|__| \
/_______:/ \::/ http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/pulse/index.htm \::/ \._______\

by **Tony R** » Fri, 17 May 1996 04:00:00

>>I was thinking of waiting for the P5-200 mhz to come out before buying
>>a new system. I *hope* that at 200 mhz, GP2 will be able to run with
>>ALL details on in SVGA mode at a smooth frame rate! From what I've
>>heard and read in this newsgroup and elsewhere, a 166 is not going to
>>cut it.

>I don't know about you guys, but I don't like the way things are going
>with the latest games. I bought my P-120 six months ago, and already
>the processor (the rest of my machine is OK) is obsolete.

>I don't enjoy having to upgrade my processor to run a $70 (?) game.
>Where is it going to end?

Hopefully we'll be saved by the likes of Rendition, Lockheed etc and
there new 3D cards. Though these wont help for GP2 since I beleive it
wont be programmed to use them.

Tony

rec.autos.simulators

F1GP2 @ SA Computer Faire - impressions

F1GP2 @ SA Computer Faire - impressions

F1GP2 @ SA Computer Faire - impressions

F1GP2 @ SA Computer Faire - impressions

F1GP2 @ SA Computer Faire - impressions

F1GP2 @ SA Computer Faire - impressions

F1GP2 @ SA Computer Faire - impressions

F1GP2 @ SA Computer Faire - impressions

F1GP2 @ SA Computer Faire - impressions