Pentium Pros?

I doubt you'd see anything other than the straight MHz gain when using a Pentium Pro chip over a Pentium for a DOS 4GW game. Only when Windows NT becomes the standard operating system for PCs will people be able to take advantage of multi threaded games which will run on multiple processors. Simulations would probably suit a threaded programming environment because you could have seperate threads for, say, the different aspects of the physics model, graphics engine and AI. Personally, I think the immediate future lies in 3D graphics accelerator boards because: - they will provided much better performance increase per $ than additional (or faster) processors. - Games programmers are only now seriously considering Windows 95 as their operating system of choice. Fraser

: >Hi sim folks: : > Has anybody actually tried a Pentium Pro with max res and detail EF2K, : >Indycar II, Descent, or any other demanding sim? If so, did you see any : >advantages? : I doubt you'd see anything other than the straight MHz gain : when using a Pentium Pro chip over a Pentium for a DOS 4GW game. : Only when Windows NT becomes the standard operating system for : PCs will people be able to take advantage of multi threaded games : which will run on multiple processors. Simulations would probably : suit a threaded programming environment because you could have : seperate threads for, say, the different aspects of the physics : model, graphics engine and AI. : Personally, I think the immediate future lies in 3D graphics : accelerator boards because: : - they will provided much better performance increase per $ : than additional (or faster) processors. : - Games programmers are only now seriously considering Windows 95 : as their operating system of choice. : Fraser I don't agree with you there! The Pentium pro is optimised for running 32 bit code and a dos extender, such as DOS4GW (?) allows the processor to run 32 bit code under dos, therefore as far as I know, the user would see a dramatic increase in speed when running these games on a Pentium Pro. Cheers, Jonathan PS. I agree with the 3d graphics board bit though!!!! -- ________________________________________________________________________ / \ | Sir Jonathan Dyson - ICL Servers and Networks Division | | "Think cheese, think peas......think CHEESY-PEAS!" | \________________________________________________________________________/

> Everybody knows the Pro isn't optimized for 16 bit applications. >Changing the value of the SEG registers cripples it. But I am told that >apps for DOS extenders, I think the most popular is called DOS4GW, can >take advantage of a "flat" 32 bit environment. And the newest Univbe is >also a 32 bit utility. No, you are wrong, changing the segment registers has got nothing to do with it's speed disadvantage, that's way too simplistic, plus it's wrong. The problem with the PPro is that it cannot handle mixed instructions, where some of the code is using 32-bit operands while other code is using 8 or 16-bit operands. You can continue to use 64K segments till the cows come home, and the PPro will run just as fast within those segments as any other sized segment; you just have to make sure that you don't mix your operands up, because that causes dependencies that the PPro doesn't want to superscale on. Of course, the fact that you are using 64K segments means that you are by default using 16-bit memory pointer references, therefore you must use 16-bit registers for these pointers. So you might end up with mixed cases if a 16-bit memory pointer reference follows a 32-bit operand reference, or vice-versa. Well, ever since the 486, all x86's have had internal caches. That's nothing new or different in a PPro. The only difference is that the caches have been growing and growing with every new family member. Don't get your hopes up. The ideal game platform of the future is Windows 95 not Windows NT. Microsoft's DirectX API extensions (previously known as WinG in Windows 3.1) are a much more viable direction for game research than SMP. DirectX is only available for Windows 95 (and possibly a retrofit to Windows 3.1), but it isn't available for Windows NT, and likely it never will be available for it. DirectX goes against every philosophy in the NT operating system, because it starts touching the hardware much more directly than is allowable in NT. NT has the HAL layer which is king, and nothing can get around it unless Microsoft specifically decrees that the philosophy of NT has changed, and direct (non-portable) accesses to the hardware will now be allowed. Forget SMP multiprocessing (a la NT), you'll get much better results with DirectX. That's because the processors employed by DirectX will be much more specialized than two or more general CPU's, which SMP is all about. Yousuf Khan

Quoted text (16 lines)

>>The thought of unleashing multiple Pentium Pros on my favorite flying and >>racing sims, as Kelly Bundy would say, "wobbles the mind". >Don't get your hopes up. The ideal game platform of the future is >Windows 95 not Windows NT. Microsoft's DirectX API extensions >(previously known as WinG in Windows 3.1) are a much more viable >direction for game research than SMP. >DirectX is only available for Windows 95 (and possibly a retrofit to >Windows 3.1), but it isn't available for Windows NT, and likely it >never will be available for it. DirectX goes against every philosophy >in the NT operating system, because it starts touching the hardware >much more directly than is allowable in NT. NT has the HAL layer which >is king, and nothing can get around it unless Microsoft specifically >decrees that the philosophy of NT has changed, and direct >(non-portable) accesses to the hardware will now be allowed.

DirectX will be available in the next beta release of NT4 (aka NT3.51+95 shell+other bits and bobs). Dunno how this fits in with NT and it's HAL but they've done it anyway. My guess is that is will still incorporate the HAL and DirectX will be a little slower on NT than 95. In a couple of years everything will be on NT. I believe that MS decided to add DirectX to NT as they want NT to be the embedded OS of choice for arcade games! Never know, maybe GC is going to release GP2 on NT only??? I think you'd get best results from a multi-processor machine with DirectX technology and maybe multithreaded too. Over time it will happen.... (20 years later... GP2 still not out....) Jamie ============================================================================== Oracle Park Oracle Office: joshaugh.uk Bittams Lane, Guildford Road Phone : (44) 01932 872020 ext 2298 Chertsey, Surrey, KT16 9RG Fax : (44) 01932 873273 ============================================================================== The opinions expressed here are my own and do not in any way represent Oracle or its policies.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> : >Hi sim folks: > : > Has anybody actually tried a Pentium Pro with max res and detail EF2K, > : >Indycar II, Descent, or any other demanding sim? If so, did you see any > : >advantages? > : I doubt you'd see anything other than the straight MHz gain > : when using a Pentium Pro chip over a Pentium for a DOS 4GW game. > : Only when Windows NT becomes the standard operating system for > : PCs will people be able to take advantage of multi threaded games > : which will run on multiple processors. Simulations would probably > : suit a threaded programming environment because you could have > : seperate threads for, say, the different aspects of the physics > : model, graphics engine and AI.Only with NT? what a load of crap. There already are multithreaded games for

OS/2 Warp. You don't need multiple processors to take advantage of multithreading Correct. Are they? Most games I've seen so far reboot win95 back to dos mode. Feature of WCIV: it's runs in win95 after rebooting to dos. (really it says on the box) well I'm impressed. know is that the performance gain of win95 on a Ppro is miserable. There is just too much critical code of win95 still 16bit. (Ppro is a nice way to test if a OS is really 32 bit :-) Now if you use OS/2 (which is fully 32 bit since Warp) a Ppro will MORE than DOUBLE your performance. (when #Mhz of Ppro and pentium are the same) Colorworks (could compare that with a more powerful Photostyler for OS/2) works 120% faster on a Ppro. Greetings, Marc de Vries

Quoted text (50 lines)

>> : >Hi sim folks: >> : > Has anybody actually tried a Pentium Pro with max res and detail EF2K, >> : >Indycar II, Descent, or any other demanding sim? If so, did you see any >> : >advantages? >> : I doubt you'd see anything other than the straight MHz gain >> : when using a Pentium Pro chip over a Pentium for a DOS 4GW game. >> : Only when Windows NT becomes the standard operating system for >> : PCs will people be able to take advantage of multi threaded games >> : which will run on multiple processors. Simulations would probably >> : suit a threaded programming environment because you could have >> : seperate threads for, say, the different aspects of the physics >> : model, graphics engine and AI.Only with NT? what a load of crap. There already are multithreaded games for >OS/2 Warp. You don't need multiple processors to take advantage of multithreading >> : Personally, I think the immediate future lies in 3D graphics >> : accelerator boards because: >> : - they will provided much better performance increase per $ >> : than additional (or faster) processors. >Correct. >> : - Games programmers are only now seriously considering Windows 95 >> : as their operating system of choice. >Are they? Most games I've seen so far reboot win95 back to dos mode. >Feature of WCIV: it's runs in win95 after rebooting to dos. >(really it says on the box) well I'm impressed. >> : Fraser >> I don't agree with you there! The Pentium pro is optimised for running 32 bit >> code and a dos extender, such as DOS4GW (?) allows the processor to run 32 bit >> code under dos, therefore as far as I know, the user would see a dramatic >> increase in speed when running these games on a Pentium Pro. >> Not sure about what performance a PPro give with DOS4GW games. But one thing I do >know is that the performance gain of win95 on a Ppro is miserable. >There is just too much critical code of win95 still 16bit. (Ppro is a nice way to test >if a OS is really 32 bit :-) >Now if you use OS/2 (which is fully 32 bit since Warp) a Ppro will MORE than DOUBLE your >performance. (when #Mhz of Ppro and pentium are the same) >Colorworks (could compare that with a more powerful Photostyler for OS/2) works 120% faster >on a Ppro. >Greetings, >Marc de Vries

Instead of guessing lets talk reality. I have a Micron Pentium Pro 200 with 64 meg of memory, fast SCSI-2, and an Imagine-128 video card. The horsepower alone makes everything run faster including Win'95. This is the only system I've ever seen that can run Origins ***Mage full screen SVGA with no hesitation. All of the racing sims run ultra smooth and seem not to strain the system at all. As for operating systems let's get real. Win95 is about 40% faster on this machine than a run of the mill Pentium 166 using IDE. For the OS/2 zealot, anytime OS/2 runs dos code it runs it in 16 bit mode NOT able to multithread anything in dos. This is reality, I do OS/2 support so don't even try the Bill G. minion of hell flame on me! It also runs 16 bit code when running Win programs. Maybe Merlin may fix this. If you plan on running dos games under OS/2, don't. Do yourself a favor and just boot dos. This way you won't run into the sound card driver and pick a timer setting nightmares as well as other dos driver trivia!As for NT, 3.51 still uses the 286 emulator to run dos. The Pro might as well BE a 286 running games here. The NT 4.0 beta just released however is a 486 emulator but haven't tried it with dos games yet but when I do I'll post results. I really try NOT to be OS biased because all of them feature something the others don't. For example, Win95's autorun CD, OS/2 native multithreading (try Stardocks GalCiv2) and NT's fully 32 bit execution and 486 emulator. Gene Miller

Quoted text (62 lines)

> >> : >Hi sim folks: > >> : > Has anybody actually tried a Pentium Pro with max res and detail EF2K, > >> : >Indycar II, Descent, or any other demanding sim? If so, did you see any > >> : >advantages? > >> : I doubt you'd see anything other than the straight MHz gain > >> : when using a Pentium Pro chip over a Pentium for a DOS 4GW game. > >> : Only when Windows NT becomes the standard operating system for > >> : PCs will people be able to take advantage of multi threaded games > >> : which will run on multiple processors. Simulations would probably > >> : suit a threaded programming environment because you could have > >> : seperate threads for, say, the different aspects of the physics > >> : model, graphics engine and AI.Only with NT? what a load of crap. There already are multithreaded games for > >OS/2 Warp. You don't need multiple processors to take advantage of multithreading > >> : Personally, I think the immediate future lies in 3D graphics > >> : accelerator boards because: > >> : - they will provided much better performance increase per $ > >> : than additional (or faster) processors. > >Correct. > >> : - Games programmers are only now seriously considering Windows 95 > >> : as their operating system of choice. > >Are they? Most games I've seen so far reboot win95 back to dos mode. > >Feature of WCIV: it's runs in win95 after rebooting to dos. > >(really it says on the box) well I'm impressed. > >> : Fraser > >> I don't agree with you there! The Pentium pro is optimised for running 32 bit > >> code and a dos extender, such as DOS4GW (?) allows the processor to run 32 bit > >> code under dos, therefore as far as I know, the user would see a dramatic > >> increase in speed when running these games on a Pentium Pro. > >> Not sure about what performance a PPro give with DOS4GW games. But one thing I do > >know is that the performance gain of win95 on a Ppro is miserable. > >There is just too much critical code of win95 still 16bit. (Ppro is a nice way to test > >if a OS is really 32 bit :-) > >Now if you use OS/2 (which is fully 32 bit since Warp) a Ppro will MORE than DOUBLE your > >performance. (when #Mhz of Ppro and pentium are the same) > >Colorworks (could compare that with a more powerful Photostyler for OS/2) works 120% faster > >on a Ppro. > >Greetings, > >Marc de Vries > Instead of guessing lets talk reality. I have a Micron Pentium Pro 200 with > 64 meg of memory, fast SCSI-2, and an Imagine-128 video card. The horsepower > alone makes everything run faster including Win'95. This is the only system > I've ever seen that can run Origins ***Mage full screen SVGA with no hesitation. > All of the racing sims run ultra smooth and seem not to strain the system at all. > As for operating systems let's get real. Win95 is about 40% faster on this machine > than a run of the mill Pentium 166 using IDE. For the OS/2 zealot, anytime OS/2 > runs dos code it runs it in 16 bit mode NOT able to multithread anything in dos. > This is reality, I do OS/2 support so don't even try the Bill G. minion of hell > flame on me! It also runs 16 bit code when running Win programs. Maybe Merlin > may fix this. If you plan on running dos games under OS/2, don't. Do yourself a favor and just boot dos. This way you won't run into the sound card driver and

Correct but this is really the same as with Win95 since it reboots back to dos also (MSDOS mode they call it...heh heh, some people are even fooled by it. amazing isn't it?) Of course when talking about games for the pentium pro we're are talking about 32bit games. Then the OS on which it runs is important. And it has been proven that the PPro gives better performance with NT and OS2 than win95 because win95 is not fully 32 bit internally. Well win95 can do multithreading too I was told many times. NT's fully 32 bit execution? tell me the difference with OS2 please. Maybe I've misunderstood. And please somebody tell me why it is so great that Win95 autoruns CD's????? (I wouldn't even want that in my audio cd player!) Greetings, Marc de Vries

The difference in the Pentium Pro processor is that unlike the previous Intel x86 architecture processors, the Pentium Pro processor incorporates an L2 (second level cache) into the primary processor package. This means that you have the L1 cache which is internal to the processor itself--like with the i486-class processors, and a much larger L2 cache also included in the same PGA package. That's why there's two cavities in the Pentium Pro processor PGA package--one cavity holds the processor and its L1 cache, and the other cavity holds the large L2 cache.

After reading the lastest CGW article on the "3D Blaster", I'm not so sure the performance improvement with the 3D graphics card will be as great as the marketing ad portrays it to be. Regards, Gary Eastham

> Has anybody actually tried a Pentium Pro with max res and detail EF2K, >Indycar II, Descent, or any other demanding sim? If so, did you see any >advantages? Most of the Pros aren't shipping. I ordered mine quite some time ago and it has still not shipped. I understand that 150MHz ones are now going out slowly, but the 200MHz I ordered is still not really available. Correct. At least Papyrus's stuff is 32-bit. Precisely what I expect to find. (Quite an educated estimate, but an estimate nonetheless.) Actually most MP Pentiums have a cache per processor too. (In fact, all of the ones I've ever looked at, which is quite a few now, have separate caches.) Yes, because there are always synchronizatino primitives that do consume cpu time. On an MP, you don't usually care, since you get a lot of help from the other cpu(s), but on a uni you do notice. I wish we had them ported to Solaris/SPARC and threaded, since we could then run them on our quad-processor RISC boxes. Or heck, in this case, I'd even run on an SGI box too! -- Brian Wong Systems Engineering Group (Servers)

That's because the 3D Blaster is ***- I suspect that Creative Labs decided to try and grab market share by releasing one of the first 3D cards targetted specifically at the home market (the PCI version isn't out yet). The Diamond Edge isn't too hot either. However, I've seen a demo of Rave Racer running on the new PowerVR 3D chipset (which is designed to complement your existing graphics card, I believe), and it was AMAZING (30 fps at 640*480 on a P-133). In addition, it's going to be much cheaper than either the 3D Blaster or the Edge and offer an unbelievable performance increase per $. This time next year there will be many more 3D cards on the market and I suspect many people who like fast SVGA games will buy them. Fraser

: > may fix this. If you plan on running dos games under OS/2, don't. Do : > yourself a favor and just boot dos. This way you won't run into the : > sound card driver and.... : Correct but this is really the same as with : Win95 since it reboots back to dos also : (MSDOS mode they call it...heh heh, some people are even fooled by it. : amazing isn't it?) It is because Microsoft is bent on taking over the world. I am totally convinced now that they misslead the public and hardware vendors about the performance of their products. I tried to purchase a computer from a good company, DELL, the other day. I told them I did not want Windows95, but rather OS/2. They told me they couldn't do it. What?!! I even told them to just leave out the hard drive if that could help. Nope, they wouldn't budge. They said I must by a computer with Microsoft Windows95 (and of course all the thousands of dollars worth of bullshit 'extras' like spiderman's cartoon writer, etc...). In effect, I must by a computer that is advertised as a top of the line Pentium 133 (and pay big$$) when the os only lets it run as fast as a Pentium 75 in dos!!! Arrgg!! My question is how much is Microsoft paying the vendors to include _only_ their OS?? It really sucks. Certainly there are laws against this. Sorry this is off topic/thread, but your comment unleashed my pent up anger and distrust to these jackasses. I'll try not to let this happen again. Matt

There's an item on the PowerVR 3D in the march 96 edition of Edge (UK) magazine. Certainly looks like it could be a winner and it's backed by NEC and Videologic. Namco have announced an alliance with NEC and have begun converting several of their arcade titles, including Rave Racer, Tekken and Air Combat 22 (ready for release in May). Videologic claim these titles actually surpass their arcade predecessors. Where did you manage to see the demo of Rave Racer running on the PowerVR ? Did you see any of the other software ? What was it like ? Tia Jeremy

a) I can fully understand why DELL and many other companies supply all of their PC with one standard OS (such as Win 95) - they certainly will have some sort of deal with Microsoft which ensures a very low cost per copy of the OS. If you want OS/2, go out and buy it yourself!! b) I have a DELL P-133. I assume it's a clock doubled 66 Mhz processor and given that it has 512 Kb pipeline burst cache it runs at a damned good speed under DOS. Why do you believe a P-133 will only run as fast as a P-75 under DOS??????? Fraser

Quoted text (31 lines)

>>It is because Microsoft is bent on taking over the world. I am totally >>convinced now that they misslead the public and hardware vendors about the >>performance of their products. I tried to purchase a computer from a good >>company, DELL, the other day. I told them I did not want Windows95, but >>rather OS/2. They told me they couldn't do it. What?!! I even told them >>to just leave out the hard drive if that could help. Nope, they wouldn't >>budge. They said I must by a computer with Microsoft Windows95 (and of >>course all the thousands of dollars worth of bullshit 'extras' like >>spiderman's cartoon writer, etc...). In effect, I must by a computer that >>is advertised as a top of the line Pentium 133 (and pay big$$) when the os >>only lets it run as fast as a Pentium 75 in dos!!! Arrgg!! My question is >>how much is Microsoft paying the vendors to include _only_ their OS?? It >>really sucks. Certainly there are laws against this. Sorry this is off >>topic/thread, but your comment unleashed my pent up anger and distrust to >>these jackasses. >>I'll try not to let this happen again. >>Matt >a) I can fully understand why DELL and many other companies supply >all of their PC with one standard OS (such as Win 95) - they certainly >will have some sort of deal with Microsoft which ensures a very low >cost per copy of the OS. If you want OS/2, go out and buy it yourself!! >b) I have a DELL P-133. I assume it's a clock doubled 66 Mhz processor >and given that it has 512 Kb pipeline burst cache it runs at a damned >good speed under DOS. Why do you believe a P-133 will only run as >fast as a P-75 under DOS??????? >Fraser

With the volume of machines that Dell moves, it would be a nightmare to have to support multiple OS's... FWIW, my P100 ran DOS apps faster than a friend's P75... and when I upgraded to a 133 it got faster still. It does seem slower running DOS apps from a DOS PROMPT in W95, but in DOS mode it rips. Trips

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Has anybody actually tried a Pentium Pro with max res and detail EF2K, >>Indycar II, Descent, or any other demanding sim? If so, did you see any >>advantages? >Most of the Pros aren't shipping. I ordered mine quite some time ago >and it has still not shipped. I understand that 150MHz ones are now >going out slowly, but the 200MHz I ordered is still not really available.

Please let us know how ICR2 etc runs on your new PPro when you receive it. I for one would be extremely interested in details as I wish to upgrade me PC soon. The PPro is attractive, but, it has to be said, performance of Papyrus' games is a prime requisite in any new upgrade, alongside which OS I choose to go with (most likely WinNT v4.0 by then)!!!! Stuart -- Stuart Booth ... Somewhere in Epsom, England, UK. You are welcome to distribute this message on the Microsoft Network. Why do some silly folk say you can't do so with their messages?

: With the volume of machines that Dell moves, it would be a nightmare to : have to support multiple OS's... Not a good reason. Besides, there wouldn't be that many 'extra' things to load if it were OS/2.:) It only takes them a minute to install(Especially for the pros that have done it more than once.). Besides when you are buying a (near?) top of the line piece of equipment for say $2k or $3K, why shouldn't a company offer a few options. Shoot, it's not brain surgery to keep a tab and install an OS as they are sold. It is the almighty dollar/pound/yen... that's driving this insanity. Remember when AT&T had the same idea? (Personally, I'm sorry AT&T got split, they actually had a good quality product at a reasonable price, and did not try to fool the public too much.) : FWIW, my P100 ran DOS apps faster than a friend's P75... and when I : upgraded to a 133 it got faster still. It does seem slower running DOS : apps from a DOS PROMPT in W95, but in DOS mode it rips. Yea, that's exactly what I was talking about. In fact, 'real' DOS mode is pretty darn close to _5 times_ faster than Windows DOS prompt. Why should I have to deal with/pay for that if I already own an older DOS version that works better for what I'm gonna use it for? Matt

snipped : b) I have a DELL P-133. I assume it's a clock doubled 66 Mhz processor : and given that it has 512 Kb pipeline burst cache it runs at a damned : good speed under DOS. Why do you believe a P-133 will only run as : fast as a P-75 under DOS??????? Actually, I meant the P133 under Windows95 runs as fast as a P75 under DOS. Sorry, 'bout that. Matt

[snip] I don't understand the above comment. What is it about Windows 95 which means a P133 runs like a P75 in DOS???? Mike. ---------------------------- Voice: +44 (0)113 297 9797 Fax: +44 (0)113 297 9798 Snail: BJSS, Albion Tower, 11 Albion Street, Leeds, LS1 5ES, England

Quoted text (24 lines)

>: With the volume of machines that Dell moves, it would be a nightmare to >: have to support multiple OS's... >Not a good reason. Besides, there wouldn't be that many 'extra' things to >load if it were OS/2.:) It only takes them a minute to install(Especially >for the pros that have done it more than once.). Besides when you are >buying a (near?) top of the line piece of equipment for say $2k or $3K, >why shouldn't a company offer a few options. Shoot, it's not brain >surgery to keep a tab and install an OS as they are sold. It is the >almighty dollar/pound/yen... that's driving this insanity. Remember when >AT&T had the same idea? (Personally, I'm sorry AT&T got split, they >actually had a good quality product at a reasonable price, and did not try >to fool the public too much.) >: FWIW, my P100 ran DOS apps faster than a friend's P75... and when I >: upgraded to a 133 it got faster still. It does seem slower running DOS >: apps from a DOS PROMPT in W95, but in DOS mode it rips. >Yea, that's exactly what I was talking about. In fact, 'real' DOS mode >is pretty darn close to _5 times_ faster than Windows DOS prompt. Why >should I have to deal with/pay for that if I already own an older DOS >version that works better for what I'm gonna use it for? >Matt

If you plan on running 16 bit apps, like many of the flight sim games (Falcon for one), don't plan on too much performance on the P6 pros. They are optimized for 32 bit apps and your 16 bit apps will run _very_ slow on the P6's. I compared a P5 166 and a P6 166 (both loaded with Win95) and had the following results: 32 bit apps screamed on the P6, but 16 bit apps slowed to a crawl (approximately equal to a 486DX-33). With this in mind, I'd opt for the P5 166 for flight sims and other games. Just my $.02 FWIW AJ _____ AJ Asbury Kansas City, Missouri _______________

I read somewhere that MS signs contracts with vendors like this: MS lets the company use its operating system not by copy sold, but PCs sold. So if Dell sells a PC with another OS on it, they have to pay for TWO OSs. Gregory Fung Vancouver, B.C., Canada Papyrus Racing Organization 95 Champion IICC3 Ground Effects/Rebel Alliance Lola-Ford-Firestone

>MS lets the company use its operating system not by copy sold, but PCs >sold. So if Dell sells a PC with another OS on it, they have to pay for >TWO OSs. This is true, and supposedly outlawed by last years consent decree with the "Justice" department. The decree had no teeth, though, and most observers agree Microsoft got off with a hand-slapping. Joe

>32 bit apps screamed on the P6, but 16 bit apps slowed to a crawl >(approximately equal to a 486DX-33). With this in mind, I'd opt for the P5 >166 for flight sims and other games. AJ, Thanks for the info! This just confirms what a guy at the computer shop had told me. Dominic Tuso Vancouver, Washington, USA

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I commented on this same fact about two weeks ago. I too have a Pro 200 >and IT DOES blow the doors off of a P5-166 in DOS using MS-DOS 6.20. For >the first time I can run full resolution of ANY game I play and this >includes Origins ***Mage at full screen SVGA. The initial slowdown was >due to a bug in the Orion chipset and a patch HAS BEEN released!!! >Please don't diss the P6 if you've never played it OR benchmarked it >against a P5. I have P5 systems from 60 to 166Mhz and one P6. Guess which >one benchmarks 16 bit code 50% faster than the rest?

That's because is a 200 mhz. A p6-166 is about the same as a p5-166 running pure 16 bit code. This what is pissing people off since before every generation was approx. twice as fast at the same MHZ... Run you p6 agains a p5-200 (w/ the cache running a a MUCH higher mhz like on the p6) and I doubt you could notice the diff. John