Anybody Run ICR2 on a 5x86-133?

I am contemplating upgrading to an AMD 5x86-133mhz motherboard, and was wondering if this will really improve over my Cyrix 486-dx2/80? I was told that the 5x86-133 was comparable to a Pentium 90 or so. Any feedback? Craig Marcho

I=B4m using a PCI-board with 83 MHz Pentium Overdrive CPU (nearly the same as AMD=B4s 586 133Mhz P75 CPU). ICR2 runs smooth in SVGA ! Buy it ;-) Axel

> I am contemplating upgrading to an AMD 5x86-133mhz motherboard, and was wondering > if this will really improve over my Cyrix 486-dx2/80? I was told that the 5x86-133 > was comparable to a Pentium 90 or so. Any feedback? > Craig Marcho Contrary to the opinions of those who write for magazines and most of the speed tests that you see, clock speed counts. Even though a speed test (many I've tested) show the 5x85-133 to be just slightly faster than a P75, it is not the case in games. Maybe in Windows, it acts just better than a P75.... But not in DOS based games. Most speed tests calculate windows performance, or a combination of processor and hard disk, (or whatever).... In reality (at least for games) 133mhz is 133mhz. I have a P90 with 64 megs of RAM and a 5x86-133 with 16 megs. The AMD 133 is smoother by a noticable amount in games like Nascar, Indycar II, Descent. THis can mean only one thing.... Games (as of today - I make no promise of tomorrow) don't care if you're dual-pipelined, nor are they generally hindered by a slower hard drive.... (or even a cheap video card). Most of what we are discussing load the program into memory and then try to generate as much detail as possible, 20-30 times a second so you can get "smooth frame rate". Before someone gets on me for the slow hard drive crack..... Yes, a slow hard disk will make the game load slower and take longer between "levels" or "tracks" or "sessions" or whatever you do. Just for a test, I've run Nascar on a fast computer with an old MFM Seagate 251 hard drive. (40 MB, slow as a turtle). Only the load times were affected. So, my advice is yes, buy the 133. Spend money on processor speed and sufficient RAM. The rest is insignificant in comparison and not nearly as much bang for the buck. Mike -(who still runs old hard disks on his AMD 133)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> ... > This can mean only one thing.... Games (as of today - I make no > promise of tomorrow) don't care if you're dual-pipelined, nor are they > generally hindered by a slower hard drive.... (or even a cheap video > card). Most of what we are discussing load the program into memory and > then try to generate as much detail as possible, 20-30 times a second so > you can get "smooth frame rate".

My experience re: graphics cards can differ GREATLY, at least in one instance. On my P90, my Matrox MGA Ultima II I was running was dog slow w/ ICR II. Popped in a Hercules Graphite Terminator - instant, dramatic boost in frame rate (both cases, all detail on). The increment going up to a P133 was not so nearly impressive. I should admit, the Matrox MGA Ultima II was known to stink at DOS performance (had to load ram-resident VESA support), 'though its MSWin performance was quite good... pwb

Quoted text (16 lines)

>> ... >> This can mean only one thing.... Games (as of today - I make no >> promise of tomorrow) don't care if you're dual-pipelined, nor are they >> generally hindered by a slower hard drive.... (or even a cheap video >> card). Most of what we are discussing load the program into memory and >> then try to generate as much detail as possible, 20-30 times a second so >> you can get "smooth frame rate". >My experience re: graphics cards can differ GREATLY, at least in one instance. >On my P90, my Matrox MGA Ultima II I was running was dog slow w/ ICR II. Popped in a >Hercules Graphite Terminator - instant, dramatic boost in frame rate (both cases, all >detail on). The increment going up to a P133 was not so nearly impressive. >I should admit, the Matrox MGA Ultima II was known to stink at DOS performance (had >to load ram-resident VESA support), 'though its MSWin performance was quite good... >pwb

I'll second this. Last Xmas I bought myself a P90 system. Hey I worked hard last year ;) After getting back into Nascar racing and getting ICR2, I decided that an upgrade to a P133 was in the works, so I treated myself to that. Then, after frowning at the performance of Nascrar (SVGA was still lacking in the framerates) and ICR2 was almost there but not quite. So, on the recommendation of Bill Cranston (thanx again!), I got a Hercules Stingray Pro. Although this is only the 32 bit card, I ran out of money, I really wanted the 64 bit card but at over twice the price :( i was amazed at the performance increase over the Cirrus card I had in there before. The Hercules made a BIGGER iprovement in framerates than going from a P90 to a P133. I think Hercules has a great product here and anyone looking for a performance increase would do well getting one of these beasts. The 32 bit card is very reasonably priced and makes a huge improvement in framerates. Karl

Maybe, but what do YOU consider a reasonable price?<G> I am NOT paranoid. And why are you always watching me?!? Eldred Pickett

..snip... =================================== Well, there you go. Your mileage may vary. I guess it all depends on what you upgrade from... :-)

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> The 32 bit card is very reasonably priced and makes a huge improvement >>in framerates. >> Karl >Maybe, but what do YOU consider a reasonable price?<G> >I am NOT paranoid. And why are you always watching me?!? >Eldred Pickett

$130 Canadian plus tax. That's very reasonable. Considering that a Cirrus card OEM is about $100, if you are getting a system built, an extra $40 for the vicdeo card upgrade is cheap. Even as an after sale upgrade, the price of the card is still pretty cheap and even a better deal if you can sell your old video card privately.