rec.autos.simulators

Anyone else got any comparison figures on the P200 Pro versus the high
speed Pentiums.  The only reply posted so far is a bit dubious, I don't
understand how a 32-bit game can be lots slower on a Pro than on a 166,
after all the Pro is specially built for fast 32-bit code processing and so
should be quicker running any game out now - after all most of them are
pure 32-bit aren't they?  

All the Win95 games will be cool, 'cos they're all Direct3D and DirectX
32-bit.  And surely any DOS4GW will be quicker.

I admit that I would have problems running 16-bit Windows packages, but I'm
gonna put up with this.

James Long
Renault Team JSL

I recently upgraded my P5-166 to a P6-200 (both with 64mb of RAM).  I kept ALL
the cards from the P5 and put them in the P6 and here is what I found.

DOS4GW Games - about 2-3 times faster than a non-pro system
Windows 95 Games - about 2 times faster than a non-pro
16bit apps - run as fast as they used to on the P5-166

So the end result for ME was that worst case scenario I was STAYING THE SAME as
what I previously had (P5-166) but for most of my new 32bit games as was at
least doubling my peformance.

You can also expect normal pentiums (non-pro) to become extinct sometime this
year so why buy into a dead technology.  Gateway 2000 has already stated that
the Pentium Pro will be the smallest computer you can buy from them by the end
of 1997.  May as well get one now....

   Sorry about the lack of replies.  This one was done to death in
this and the flight sim groups a long time ago.  

   Last time this was discussed, the concessus was that P6 was the
clear superior machine for 32 bit apps.  Let's see if I remember
this correctly, For EF2000, GP 2, ICR 2, and some others that were
hot this summer, the P6/200 was the winner, by a large margin, over
the P5/166, and the P5/200 wasn't much better than the P5/166.  I
haven't seen anything about the P5 MMX.  

   Precise frame rate numbers are not available for most sims.  It
gets down to being "Smooth as the movies", which I would assume is
up over 20 FPS.  The P6 was only taxed by Monaco.  

   I'm happy with the P6, I would recommend one, I can't afford to
buy every kind of P5, P5/166, P5/200 and P5/MMX, so I can't
personally tell you how those would compare.  

   I'm sorry about the lack of hard figures.  Good luck.  

                                                              Larry

Many thanks for the information, you've just sold someone a P6, you ought
to work for Intel.

Cool, all the reviews I've read of the MMX says its a waste of time until
they write games and apps that use the registers on the chip.  Question is
- will anyone bother and how long will it be before they do, if they do?
The only plus I've heard was with flight sims (and presumably our games),
but it wasn't a vast improvement.

So, even the hottest PC on the market today is taxed by Monaco - wonder
what Geoff was up to when he designed the course.

It's kept me happy.  All I need now is 1 and a half grand.

James

Here I go, jumping in in MicroProse's corner again... :-)

I think it's appropriate to fully (and perhaps just a shade more than
fully) utilize the available hardware. Look back at all the flack
Papyrus took for the hardware requirements for NASCAR1 (primarily the
SVGA mode) when it was released (Christmas 1994). People with 486-66s
(a reasonable machine at the time, but not top of the line) couldn't
get a playable frame-rate in SVGA mode. One solution to this would
have been to not ship an SVGA mode, so 486 owners wouldn't have been
upset. (Of course, they still wouldn't have been able to play SVGA
mode, but something in human nature makes it more palatable for NO ONE
to be able to enjoy something that I can't enjoy... :-) )

N1 is still plenty of fun today (N2 is obviously better IMO), because
Papyrus was willing to stick their neck out just a little bit and
deliver a game which only a select few machines (if any) of the day
could run very well.

Machines get faster all the time, and as they do, games which were
once slightly out of reach become very playable, giving them a little
longer "legs," both for game companies, and for the users who shell
out cold cash for them. (I like the fact that I can buy a game and
play it for several hundreds of hours over a year or two. That works
out to well under $0.50 per hour of entertainment. :-) )

---Jim Sokoloff, Papyrus, but speaking my own opinions...

looking for an excuse. :)

   I know this is a big investment, I didn't want to go on and

on in that post, but let me make sure you understand some facts.  

   My P6 is based on the debugged Orion chip set.  This is a

screamer, however I currently have one bank of memory.  In order

to get the most from this machine, I need four banks to give me

"4 way interleaf memory", which should get me a little more speed.  

   The new P6 workstations are built around the Natoma chip set.  

This chip set has some additional performance features, including

support for EDO RAM.  I have been told that this is like having

two way interleaf memory, so you will have an advantage over my

machine's current config.  

   OK, my PC is a screamer, you P6 will be a little faster.  I

usually run with clouds off, and mirror at minimum.  This means

that the cars in the mirror seem to be floating on a blue field.  

Everything else is maxed.  With this setup, all of the tracks

I've tried, except Monaco, seem to be "like the movies".  I'm

very impressed as the track texture, red and white curbing, and

many other visual queues slip smoothly by.  

   Monaco is also great.  But I turn the frame rate down to 18,

in order to avoid the processor overload slow down, its not like

a slideshow.  The frame rate is fast enough for me to have good

control of the car, react to what is going on, and get a good

sensation of speed.  

   Processors will continue to advance, I agree with Jim Sokoloff,

sim developers should produce games that push the limits.  

   A couple of other things to consider:

   DOS4GW is a 32 bit flat file environment.  This means that

developers can develop P6 optimized programs that run in it.  

   Fastvid is a program that is run at boot time to configure the

Orion and Natoma chip sets for MUCH better performance.  Technically,

it is NOT a TSR, because it doesn't reside in memory after you run

it.  Just call it from your autoexec.bat.  I didn't have it

installed when I first ran GP2, and I was VERY disappointed.  It

makes all the difference.  Perhaps new systems have these

optimizations in their native BIOS, people in this group can tell

you.  

   When this "P6 sucks/P6 is great" debate was raging this summer,

dedicated 3D cards were not common.  Perhaps a P5 with a 3D card

can run a sim as well as a P6.  My feeling is that a P6 with a 3D

card will run it better.  

   P5/MMX has a larger cache, which should speed up everything a

little.  February's Byte showed a P5/MMX running an MMX optimized

application, I think it was Photoshop, could perform some tasks

faster than a P6/200.  But other tasks were quite a bit slower.  

I'm wondering how the P6 would perform with a 3D card, and an

application optimized for the 3D card.  

   I still recommend the P6, but the situation is fluid.  I feel

lucky that the machine I purchased last March is VERY close to

the fastest machine I should get today.  There is no guarantee

that the high end PC you buy today won't be blown into the weeds

by the PC your neighbor pays less for in 6 months.  

   As I said before, good luck.  

                                                          Larry