rec.autos.simulators

by **Ray** » Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Hi Frode!

Thanks for the info on the comparison of the above mentioned chips. You
more than anyone has convinced me to choose the PPro 200 over the P200.
I
plan to get a Hercules Dynamite 128/Video graphics card along with an
Intel
Venus (with Natoma chipset) VS440FX motherboard. If you don't mind, I
want
to ask you a few questions because I just want to make really sure I
have
the best system available right now to run GP2.

1. Can you really run the PPro 200 in SVGA with all textures turned ON?

2. What is your estimated frame rate reading in GP2 graphics detail
menu?

3. In Monaco, particularly right at the start when the cars bunch up in
the
first corner, does your frame rate in SVGA get choppy, or is it still
smooth?
What is your occupancy rate right at that instance with all the cars
bunched
up?

4. Have I selected the best Chip, Motherboard, Graphics Card
combination? Is
there more to the equation? What about RAM (how much do I need) or
Hard
Disk rating (ie. min 13 milliseconds), do any of these play a role?

5. What is your GP2 Log:On score? Are you using the "fastvid" utility to
speed
up your PCI interface?

Anyways, sorry for all the questions. I just have a 486 DX4/100 right
now
and it sucks, even in VGA mode! I just wanna race in REALTIME, if you
know
what I mean.

Thanks in advance!

Ray Flores

by **Sven Zimmerma** » Sun, 22 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Ray,

here are my experiences with PPRO 200, Asus NP5 Board, MAtrox
Millenium, 64Meg RAM:

No, with sky on you get 130-150% processor occupancy

Depends on the details you switched on

Frame rate goes down. I did switch of the track texture and get in
this corner 130% occ., the rest of the track is under 100%. But
remember, I always turn off the sky.

Number of cars is irrelevant

This question can nobody really answer.

Doesn't matter for GP2, but in a PPro you would usually choose a SCSI
HD and 32 MBytes RAM, at least if you plan to run WinNT, otherwise
buy a Pentium 133 and save the money for something else.

Video is 189
CPU 350 (don't know if this is correct, pobably tested under Win95)

No.

Sven

by **Scott Pritche** » Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:00:00

You should be using fastvid. My system is almost the same as yours:
Intel Venus PPRO 200, Matrox Millenium 4MB, 64 Meg EDO. The
appropriate portion of the Gp2log.txt file is:

Dos Version: 00000007h
Running windows 95 or above
Speed (c.f. DX2-66): 379
Video speed: 637

This is using the VESA 2.0 driver built-in to the current (2.2) MGA
BIOS.

--
---------------
Scott Pritchett

by **Richard Sob** » Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:00:00

I would imagine that a P200 will run GP2 faster than a PPro200, or
does the GP2 graphics engine rely heavily on a maths co-pro? Ever
heard that a P200 will run Win95 faster than a PPro200? The PPro is
optimized for 32-bit code, whereas the P200 is optimized for 16-bit
code. Buy a P200+ which will run non math code faster than a P200 for
playing GP2.

_________
Richard Sobey

<http://www.conad.demon.co.uk>

by **David R. Cosi** » Mon, 23 Sep 1996 04:00:00

> > Ray,
> > here are my experiences with PPRO 200, Asus NP5 Board, MAtrox
> > Millenium, 64Meg RAM:

> > > 5. What is your GP2 Log:On score?
> > Video is 189
> > CPU 350 (don't know if this is correct, pobably tested under Win95)

> > > Are you using the "fastvid" utility to
> > > speed
> > > up your PCI interface?
> > No.

> You should be using fastvid. My system is almost the same as yours:
> Intel Venus PPRO 200, Matrox Millenium 4MB, 64 Meg EDO. The
> appropriate portion of the Gp2log.txt file is:

> Dos Version: 00000007h
> Running windows 95 or above
> Speed (c.f. DX2-66): 379
> Video speed: 637

> This is using the VESA 2.0 driver built-in to the current (2.2) MGA
> BIOS.

> --
> ---------------
> Scott Pritchett

I have your exact same computer and I get the exact same log scores
for GP2. The only difference is my Millenium has 8mb of memory on it.
Is there any way I can use that memory for extra performance? Or does it
make any difference?

by **Frode Dufe** » Tue, 24 Sep 1996 04:00:00

> I would imagine that a P200 will run GP2 faster than a PPro200, or
> does the GP2 graphics engine rely heavily on a maths co-pro? Ever
> heard that a P200 will run Win95 faster than a PPro200? The PPro is
> optimized for 32-bit code, whereas the P200 is optimized for 16-bit
> code. Buy a P200+ which will run non math code faster than a P200 for
> playing GP2.

> >1. Can you really run the PPro 200 in SVGA with all textures turned ON?
> >yes i can, and the processor work between 80% and 110%, that is with a hercules dynamite 128

so i got no problem with GP2

by **Scott Pritche** » Tue, 24 Sep 1996 04:00:00

> > You should be using fastvid. My system is almost the same as yours:
> > Intel Venus PPRO 200, Matrox Millenium 4MB, 64 Meg EDO. The
> > appropriate portion of the Gp2log.txt file is:

> > Dos Version: 00000007h
> > Running windows 95 or above
> > Speed (c.f. DX2-66): 379
> > Video speed: 637

> > This is using the VESA 2.0 driver built-in to the current (2.2) MGA
> > BIOS.

> I have your exact same computer and I get the exact same log scores
> for GP2. The only difference is my Millenium has 8mb of memory on it.
> Is there any way I can use that memory for extra performance? Or does it
> make any difference?

Hello David,

The extra memory on the Matrox board is only useful for supporting
1600x1200x24 bit display modes in Windows/X. You should also be able
to use the 3D acceleration feature (under Windows) at resolutions
greater than 1152x864.

--
---------------
Scott Pritchett

by **D. Cosi** » Tue, 24 Sep 1996 04:00:00

> > > You should be using fastvid. My system is almost the same as yours:
> > > Intel Venus PPRO 200, Matrox Millenium 4MB, 64 Meg EDO. The
> > > appropriate portion of the Gp2log.txt file is:

> > > Dos Version: 00000007h
> > > Running windows 95 or above
> > > Speed (c.f. DX2-66): 379
> > > Video speed: 637

> > > This is using the VESA 2.0 driver built-in to the current (2.2) MGA
> > > BIOS.

> > I have your exact same computer and I get the exact same log scores
> > for GP2. The only difference is my Millenium has 8mb of memory on it.
> > Is there any way I can use that memory for extra performance? Or does it
> > make any difference?

> Hello David,

> The extra memory on the Matrox board is only useful for supporting
> 1600x1200x24 bit display modes in Windows/X. You should also be able
> to use the 3D acceleration feature (under Windows) at resolutions
> greater than 1152x864.

> --
> ---------------
> Scott Pritchett

Thanks for the info.

by **Denni** » Wed, 25 Sep 1996 04:00:00

> I would imagine that a P200 will run GP2 faster than a PPro200, or
> does the GP2 graphics engine rely heavily on a maths co-pro? Ever
> heard that a P200 will run Win95 faster than a PPro200? The PPro is
> optimized for 32-bit code, whereas the P200 is optimized for 16-bit
> code. Buy a P200+ which will run non math code faster than a P200 for
> playing GP2.

GP2 will run faster on a PPro. This is already well established. GP2
is a DOS program and therefore, like all recent DOS games, runs an
extender. This means that the processor is able to run in protected
mode and this enables 32-bit. There is little doubt that a PPro is the
ultimate games machine at the moment.

rec.autos.simulators

Intel P200 vs Intel PPro200 vs Cyrix P200+

Intel P200 vs Intel PPro200 vs Cyrix P200+

Intel P200 vs Intel PPro200 vs Cyrix P200+

Intel P200 vs Intel PPro200 vs Cyrix P200+

Intel P200 vs Intel PPro200 vs Cyrix P200+

Intel P200 vs Intel PPro200 vs Cyrix P200+

Intel P200 vs Intel PPro200 vs Cyrix P200+

Intel P200 vs Intel PPro200 vs Cyrix P200+

Intel P200 vs Intel PPro200 vs Cyrix P200+

Intel P200 vs Intel PPro200 vs Cyrix P200+