rec.autos.simulators

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

Ray

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Ray » Wed, 18 Sep 1996 04:00:00

In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything
else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)?

Botc

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Botc » Thu, 19 Sep 1996 04:00:00


> In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything
> else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)?

The Cyrix P200+.
GP2 doesn't use the floating-point unit which is a tad slower in the
Cyrix. But it creams the P200 everyehere else. The PPro 200 would the
choice if the game were true 32-bit code, but it's not, and PPro's are a
bit slower than their Pentium equivelents in 16-bit code.
Clark Arch

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Clark Arch » Fri, 20 Sep 1996 04:00:00

 >>
 >> In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything
 >> else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)?
 >
 >The Cyrix P200+.
 >GP2 doesn't use the floating-point unit which is a tad slower in the
 >Cyrix. But it creams the P200 everyehere else. The PPro 200 would the
 >choice if the game were true 32-bit code, but it's not, and PPro's are a
 >bit slower than their Pentium equivelents in 16-bit code.

First hand reports from P6/200 owners would suggest otherwise for GP2.  Check
out Sim Racing News.

Clark

Dana Baile

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Dana Baile » Fri, 20 Sep 1996 04:00:00



> > In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything
> > else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)?

> The Cyrix P200+.
> GP2 doesn't use the floating-point unit which is a tad slower in the
> Cyrix. But it creams the P200 everyehere else. The PPro 200 would the
> choice if the game were true 32-bit code, but it's not, and PPro's are a
> bit slower than their Pentium equivelents in 16-bit code.

Do you think you're doing this guy some kind of favor by telling him
thisuseless Cyrix propaganda.  The only creaming going on was in your
pants when you got your cheapo processor.  Any objective computer expert
would recommend the Intel processors over the Cyrix.  The only place the
Cyrix has any real advantage is in price.

GP2 does use 32-bit code and it will run the fastest on a Pentium Pro.
Just because something works well for you doesn't mean it is the best
solution.  Get a life.

Dana Bailes

enzo

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by enzo » Fri, 20 Sep 1996 04:00:00


> > The Cyrix P200+.
> > GP2 doesn't use the floating-point unit which is a tad slower in the
> > Cyrix. But it creams the P200 everyehere else. The PPro 200 would the
> > choice if the game were true 32-bit code, but it's not, and PPro's are a
> > bit slower than their Pentium equivelents in 16-bit code.

> Do you think you're doing this guy some kind of favor by telling him
> thisuseless Cyrix propaganda.  The only creaming going on was in your
> pants when you got your cheapo processor.  Any objective computer expert
> would recommend the Intel processors over the Cyrix.  The only place the
> Cyrix has any real advantage is in price.

> GP2 does use 32-bit code and it will run the fastest on a Pentium Pro.
> Just because something works well for you doesn't mean it is the best
> solution.  Get a life.

Not true - the so-called "32-bit code" in GP2 is merely the 32-bit
memory
extender. As far as the Pentium Pro is concerned, GP2 is 16-bit as it
uses
16-bit instructions under the 32-bit memory extender.

As far as the "computer experts" are concerned - most would agree that
Intel
is the only way to go, but some choose Cyrix that don't need the FPU
functions.

In the meantime, be nice - this guy likes Cyrix. It's not a crime.

Mike

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Mike » Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:00:00



>> In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything
>> else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)?

You don't say what motherboard you have now, so I am assuming that you
need a new motherboard to accompany your new chip. Given this, the
p200 is definitely out of contention because it's price is ridiculous.
around $750 for just the chip) So, the decision is between the Pp200
and the Cyrix P200+ The Pp200 costs a tad over $500 and requires a
$350 motherboard. (Cheapest motherboard I've seen.) So, we are looking
at about $850. The Cyrix requires a 75mhz motherboard and , as far as
I know, the only one currently avaible is the one from DFI. I don't
know the price of it, but I guesstimate that it will be about $230.
Combine this with the price of the chip, last time I looked, about
$500. (You might be able to get an IBM 686 for quite a bit less, but I
haven't looked.) Total...$730. So, the question is whether the Pp200
is worth $120 bucks extra. Personally, if I had to choose, I think it
is. However, I would wait for the MMX versions of the Ppro and see
what happens on the 3d accelerator front.

Hope this helps,

Mike

P.S. If you do get the Pp200, make sure that you get vidspeed to
ensure that you are getting the full performance.

Mike

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Mike » Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:00:00




>>> In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything
>>> else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)?
>You don't say what motherboard you have now, so I am assuming that you
>need a new motherboard to accompany your new chip. Given this, the
>p200 is definitely out of contention because it's price is ridiculous.
>around $750 for just the chip) So, the decision is between the Pp200
>and the Cyrix P200+ The Pp200 costs a tad over $500 and requires a
>$350 motherboard. (Cheapest motherboard I've seen.) So, we are looking
>at about $850. The Cyrix requires a 75mhz motherboard and , as far as
>I know, the only one currently avaible is the one from DFI. I don't
>know the price of it, but I guesstimate that it will be about $230.
>Combine this with the price of the chip, last time I looked, about
>$500. (You might be able to get an IBM 686 for quite a bit less, but I
>haven't looked.) Total...$730. So, the question is whether the Pp200
>is worth $120 bucks extra. Personally, if I had to choose, I think it
>is. However, I would wait for the MMX versions of the Ppro and see
>what happens on the 3d accelerator front.
>Hope this helps,
>Mike

>P.S. If you do get the Pp200, make sure that you get vidspeed to
>ensure that you are getting the full performance.

Sorry, not "vidspeed" but "fastvid." :)
Laurence Lindstr

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Laurence Lindstr » Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:00:00



> > Someone not cited wrote
> > >         <Snip>
> > >                                                The PPro 200 would the
> > > choice if the game were true 32-bit code, but it's not, and PPro's are a
> > > bit slower than their Pentium equivelents in 16-bit code.
> >           <Snip>
> > GP2 does use 32-bit code and it will run the fastest on a Pentium Pro.
> > Just because something works well for you doesn't mean it is the best
> > solution.  Get a life.
> Not true - the so-called "32-bit code" in GP2 is merely the 32-bit memory
> extender. As far as the Pentium Pro is concerned, GP2 is 16-bit as it uses
> 16-bit instructions under the 32-bit memory extender.
>             <Snip>

   Not true - In the past there have been "memory extenders" that 16 bit
code can use to grab more memory.  DOS4GW is different.  It is a TRUE 32
bit environment, and code running under it can be written as a flat
memory model that will allow the P6 to run as it was intended.  An
exception might be certain DOS services like disk accesses.  But these
are always slow, and most sim designers would not perform them in the
middle of the action.  Vesa video utilities can also be implemented as
32 bit programs, and I believe the Univbe/Display Doctor, or whatever
it's called, is such a utility.  

   So the designers of sims have the ability to deliver a sim that the
P6 will be able to take advantage of.  In order to save time and effort,
some sims might use old modules that are P6 crippling 16 bit code.  
Until we hear from someone who designed F1GP2, or someone who has dis-
assembled the binary code and examined the instructions, we can only
speculate.  

   I speculate that F1GP is designed to run as a 32 bit application.  I
speculate that the P6 is currently the best processor to run F1GP2.  The
reason I would make this assumption is that the "LOG:ON" numbers, and the
descriptions of how people set their detail levels and frame rates, show
the P6 is the clear leader.  With these results, why argue about the
internals, which we will probably never see?  The P6 runs it better, and
I mean better by a margin that is clearly visible on the screen.  

   I am assuming people are telling the truth.  I've never seen F1GP2 on
a Pentium.  

   For anyone who decides to get a P6, the older P6 with the original
"A Step" Orion chip set had problems.  My "B Step" Orion runs great, and
the Natoma chip sets run better.  Get fastvid, this bumps your PCI
interface from about 20MB/sec to about 90MB/sec.  

   I agree.  There are technical arguments and experiences to prove a
point.  However, some prefer the more direct "you suck".  

                                                                   Larry

===========================================================================
Larry Lindstrom.                       Consultant - Unix - X Window - Comms

     Reality, there's nothing else quite like it.

Botc

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Botc » Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:00:00



> Do you think you're doing this guy some kind of favor by telling him
> thisuseless Cyrix propaganda.  The only creaming going on was in your
> pants when you got your cheapo processor.  Any objective computer > expert would recommend the Intel processors over the Cyrix.  The only > place the Cyrix has any real advantage is in price.

> GP2 does use 32-bit code and it will run the fastest on a Pentium Pro.
> Just because something works well for you doesn't mean it is the best
> solution.  Get a life.

> Dana Bailes

Me get a life? Gee, when last I checked GP2 ran on DOS, also, when last
I checked, DOS was 16-bit. That means GP2 is 16-bit and will run just as
fast on a Pentium or Cyrix as on a PPro (clock rates being equal). Or
does your 8-bit brain have a problem with that.

I'll tell ya what, Test them yourself, if you have access to all three
sets of components, and you will see what I mean. Unless you're speaking
from what you've read instead of what you've seen.

I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+
is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they
scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on
DOS based games.

Botch

Clark Arch

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Clark Arch » Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:00:00

 >I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+
 >is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they
 >scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on
 >DOS based games.

Unless all of the P6 owners are lying about frame rates, the P6 is DEFINITELY
faster than the P5 or Cyrix chip on GP2.

Clark

JEB

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by JEB » Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:00:00



> > Me get a life? Gee, when last I checked GP2 ran on DOS, also, when last
> > I checked, DOS was 16-bit. That means GP2 is 16-bit and will run just as
> > fast on a Pentium or Cyrix as on a PPro (clock rates being equal). Or
> > does your 8-bit brain have a problem with that.

> > I'll tell ya what, Test them yourself, if you have access to all three
> > sets of components, and you will see what I mean. Unless you're speaking
> > from what you've read instead of what you've seen.

> > I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+
> > is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they
> > scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on
> > DOS based games.

> I got a Pentium 166mhz with 32MB RAM and Hercules Dynamite 128/video, and i got a PPro200mhz with the same
> specs... My pal got a P200 with same specs to, and i just got one thing to say...

> My PPro200 beats the shit out my pal's P200 in F1GP2, i can run it with all the details on on my PPro200..
> and don' come here an say that the preformans on these machines are the same....
> And the dos extender is 32bit and put's the DOS to side so it can run the computer in tru 32 bit mode...
> Simpel and easy... DOS sucks so they must make rutines that put the DOS aside...

> Frode Dufey..

I can concur with your assesment of the situation.
The PPro runs GP2 better than the P5 200.
When the log:on scores were being tossed around here awhile back
my PPro was the highest scoring machine listed, at the time.
I don't recall what my scores were, at this moment, but it was
the highest posted of any machine, Pro or not.
I can run GP2 with FULL detail on and at Monaco at the start
from the BACK of the grid I get 24.6 frames (as I recall) and
the PO is 160 at the first turn. That is the highest that it
gets anywhere on the course. In the tunnel it drops below 100
and also at several other places on the track.
Frankly, I'm bored with this argument. So you do it and I'll
jump in once in awhile and concur....grin.

JEB

James Garriso

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by James Garriso » Sat, 21 Sep 1996 04:00:00

I have had a Dell PPro200 (32MB RAM) for about a month now, and have
racked up some serious hours on the GP2, Nascar, INdy, and NFS tracks.
Although I was really interested in a MGA video card, Dell only offered
the 2MB #9 ViRGE or Imagine.  I stuck with the cheaper ViRGE since I was
thinking of replacing it anyway.  I run the sims as deedicated DOS
sessions after booting to Win95.  On certain tracks Nascar is choppy
with everything on, ICR does much better, and GP2 runs best with most
textures off and trackside detail one notch down during races.  PO still
can push 200% at Monaco at full detail, but was over 300 on my 486.
Fastvid doesn't seem to give my card a boost. (Vspeed is 19MB with
Univbe)Is there an advantage running from a boot disk?

Frode Dufe

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Frode Dufe » Sun, 22 Sep 1996 04:00:00


> Me get a life? Gee, when last I checked GP2 ran on DOS, also, when last
> I checked, DOS was 16-bit. That means GP2 is 16-bit and will run just as
> fast on a Pentium or Cyrix as on a PPro (clock rates being equal). Or
> does your 8-bit brain have a problem with that.

> I'll tell ya what, Test them yourself, if you have access to all three
> sets of components, and you will see what I mean. Unless you're speaking
> from what you've read instead of what you've seen.

> I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+
> is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they
> scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on
> DOS based games.

I got a Pentium 166mhz with 32MB RAM and Hercules Dynamite 128/video, and i got a PPro200mhz with the same
specs... My pal got a P200 with same specs to, and i just got one thing to say...

My PPro200 beats the shit out my pal's P200 in F1GP2, i can run it with all the details on on my PPro200..
and don' come here an say that the preformans on these machines are the same....
And the dos extender is 32bit and put's the DOS to side so it can run the computer in tru 32 bit mode...
Simpel and easy... DOS sucks so they must make rutines that put the DOS aside...

Frode Dufey..

Frode Dufe

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Frode Dufe » Sun, 22 Sep 1996 04:00:00


> Me get a life? Gee, when last I checked GP2 ran on DOS, also, when last
> I checked, DOS was 16-bit. That means GP2 is 16-bit and will run just as
> fast on a Pentium or Cyrix as on a PPro (clock rates being equal). Or
> does your 8-bit brain have a problem with that.

> I'll tell ya what, Test them yourself, if you have access to all three
> sets of components, and you will see what I mean. Unless you're speaking
> from what you've read instead of what you've seen.

> I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+
> is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they
> scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on
> DOS based games.

I got a Pentium 166mhz with 32MB RAM and Hercules Dynamite 128/video, and i got a PPro200mhz with the same
specs... My pal got a P200 with same specs to, and i just got one thing to say...

My PPro200 beats the shit out my pal's P200 in F1GP2, i can run it with all the details on on my PPro200..
and don' come here an say that the preformans on these machines are the same....
And the dos extender is 32bit and put's the DOS to side so it can run the computer in tru 32 bit mode...
Simpel and easy... DOS sucks so they must make rutines that put the DOS aside...
maybe it is your brain that is 8-bit

Frode Dufey..

Botc

PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

by Botc » Sun, 22 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Do ya think posting it twice makes your brain 16-bit?

Botch


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.