is there any problem between them? I've heard that they are incompatibles,
I've heard that is slower on an AMD. Is that only a problem with K6 or K7,
AMD XP, too?
Thnaks
Guillermo
"Guillermo L�pez-D�riga" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4j6ij$fi5$[email hidden]...
> is there any problem between them? I've heard that they are incompatibles,
> I've heard that is slower on an AMD. Is that only a problem with K6 or K7,
> AMD XP, too?
If you're asking about F1 2001, it runs GREAT on AMD. It did have problems
with GeForce cards for a while, but that's been fixed. Maybe that is the
incompatibility you have been hearing about.
In general, all software will run just fine on AMD or Intel processors.
You'll see lots of debate over which is better, but the general agreement
seems to be that AMD processors are a better buy, you get more performance
for less price.
I was in Intel bigot for years but my latest PC is an AMD, because it was
cheaper AND faster than the Intel boxes available at the same time.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:52:57 +0100, "Guillermo L�pez-D�riga"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Never had any problems with any game and AMD. F1 2k1, F1CS2k, etc.
They all work.
Quoted text (8 lines)
>is there any problem between them? I've heard that they are incompatibles, >I've heard that is slower on an AMD. Is that only a problem with K6 or K7, >AMD XP, too? > >Thnaks > >Guillermo >
I couldn't play some UBI Soft Games on my "old" AMD K6-2 450 Mhz, for
example, ..."POD", and some problems with "Monaco GP RS2", i wrote to ubi
soft and they responded that the games were incompatible with AMD K6 and K7.
Did it happen to everyone? Do you know if it happens with the new AMD XP's?
Thnaks
GUillermo
> I couldn't play some UBI Soft Games on my "old" AMD K6-2 450 Mhz, for
> example, ..."POD", and some problems with "Monaco GP RS2", i wrote to ubi
> soft and they responded that the games were incompatible with AMD K6 andK7.
>
> Did it happen to everyone? Do you know if it happens with the new AMDXP's?
My personal opinion is that any AMD chip released before the Athlon had
problems. The Athlon family are excellent chips - probably more compatible
than most Pentiums.
--
Damien Smith
[email hidden]
ICQ: 77028579
F1 2001 rank: +24.828
Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:a4pdsv$246bp$[email hidden]...
> > I couldn't play some UBI Soft Games on my "old" AMD K6-2 450 Mhz, for
> > example, ..."POD", and some problems with "Monaco GP RS2", i wrote toubi
compatible
> than most Pentiums.
Well, their 386/40's were quite stable :) But I skipped the 486 almost
entirely. (I had a 486/50 that was salvaged from a Packard Bell and put into
a generic mobo for less than a year).
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > soft and they responded that the games were incompatible with AMD K6 and > K7. > > > > Did it happen to everyone? Do you know if it happens with the new AMD > XP's? > > My personal opinion is that any AMD chip released before the Athlon had > problems. The Athlon family are excellent chips - probably more> Well, their 386/40's were quite stable :) But I skipped the 486 almost
> entirely. (I had a 486/50 that was salvaged from a Packard Bell and putinto
> a generic mobo for less than a year).
Well, I had an AMD 486 DX2/66 - it wasn't a patch on the Intel DX2/66. I
guess that's why intel went from generic numbers like x86 to a brand name
like Pentium.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:10:30 +1000, "Damien Smith"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Well, I had an AMD 486 DX2/66 - it wasn't a patch on the Intel DX2/66. I
>guess that's why intel went from generic numbers like x86 to a brand name
>like Pentium.
It can be interesting to know that the processors from AMD from 486
and back were in every important aspect identical to Intels
counterpart. Intel subcontracted AMD in the very early years to
produce processors. AMD through some clever legal manuevers got the
subcontract license to the microcode to extend into their own product
lines. The 386 and 486 AMD processors had the exact same microcode as
the Intel!
This was not applicable to Pentium and beyond, though, and they had to
come up with their own architecture. The first own processor, the K5,
was notoriously incompatible. Much was due also to the DOS-type
programming in those days, much closer to the hardware. Today you even
can have different instruction sets without serious compatibility
issues. The K6 was much better in the compatibility respect, I only
knew very rare instances when things just didn't work on it.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> It can be interesting to know that the processors from AMD from 486 > and back were in every important aspect identical to Intels > counterpart. Intel subcontracted AMD in the very early years to > produce processors. AMD through some clever legal manuevers got the > subcontract license to the microcode to extend into their own product > lines. The 386 and 486 AMD processors had the exact same microcode as > the Intel!"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> My personal opinion is that any AMD chip released before the Athlon
> had problems. The Athlon family are excellent chips - probably more
> compatible than most Pentiums.
I have had no problems with my K6-III/400, nor the AMD200 before that.
A related question:
F1 doesn't like my graphics card: diamond stealth III 16MB S540. (It's on a
Compaq 7949 about a year old)
After a frustrating 2 weeks with EA tech svcs, they finally fessed up that
the game won't run that card.
Every other EA game I've got (about 8 or 9) runs fine.
Qe Passa????
RBB
"435374" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > My personal opinion is that any AMD chip released before the Athlon > > had problems. The Athlon family are excellent chips - probably more > > compatible than most Pentiums. > > I have had no problems with my K6-III/400, nor the AMD200 before that. >> After a frustrating 2 weeks with EA tech svcs, they finally fessed up that
> the game won't run that card.
> Every other EA game I've got (about 8 or 9) runs fine.
>
> Qe Passa???? There is just not enough texture memory available on that card I would
think. Plus you have a card that is not one of the more popular
brands...nothing wrong with that, but there are so few out there in the
gaming world, that programmers will rarely worry about making a game run on
those. Sure the bulk of your other EA titles work fine, but F1 2001 is a
newer breed that is really demanding of video card performance. I would
recomend getting a 64 meg card preferably from a well known manufactuer,
with either an Nvidia 2 or 3 chipset or an ATI Radeon.
dave henrie
is there a problem with f12001 and the voodoo 5 ?
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:mPAc8.94253$Pz4.379511@rwcrnsc53...
> > After a frustrating 2 weeks with EA tech svcs, they finally fessed upthat
on
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > the game won't run that card. > > Every other EA game I've got (about 8 or 9) runs fine. > > > > Qe Passa???? > There is just not enough texture memory available on that card I would > think. Plus you have a card that is not one of the more popular > brands...nothing wrong with that, but there are so few out there in the > gaming world, that programmers will rarely worry about making a game runQuoted text (8 lines)
> those. Sure the bulk of your other EA titles work fine, but F1 2001 is a > newer breed that is really demanding of video card performance. I would > recomend getting a 64 meg card preferably from a well known manufactuer, > with either an Nvidia 2 or 3 chipset or an ATI Radeon. > dave henrie > > >
"Olly Greenfield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:DgMc8.2542$[email hidden]...
> is there a problem with f12001 and the voodoo 5 ? No the V5 has enough texture memory to operate F1 2001. HOWEVER, I'm
seeing the same problem in f1 2001 as I've seen in NR 2002. A black smear
on the wall that moves back as you move forward, and follows you in the
mirror. Also the parts of the track edge where there is no curbing is
bright green mixed with blue on the outside edges. Doesn't hinder anything
but sure looks goofy.
dave henrie
In article <DgMc8.2542$[email hidden]>, "Olly
Greenfield" <[email hidden]> writes:
>is there a problem with f12001 and the voodoo 5 ?
Not that *I've* seen. Mine seems to work ok.
Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
