Pentium 200 / Pentium PRO 200 ?

> What is better? A Pentium 200 or a Pentium PRO 200 for indycar 2 or > nascar ? I would be greatful if anybody could give me some answers. If you plan on running Win95, the Pentium Pro will not offer much of a performance increase over a regular Pentium. Under WinNT however it will be significantly faster, perhaps as much as double. So, unless you plan on switching to WinNT 4.0 when it is released this fall, it really makes no sense to spend the extra money to upgrade to the Pro. -- Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/ Hawaii Network UserName: Buschwick

What is better? A Pentium 200 or a Pentium PRO 200 for indycar 2 or nascar ? I would be greatful if anybody could give me some answers. Thanks Joost

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >What is better? A Pentium 200 or a Pentium PRO 200 for indycar 2 or >nascar ? I would be greatful if anybody could give me some answers. > >Thanks >Joost >

I believe that Rick Genter has pointed out that ICR2 is a 32-bit program, so you should see about 2x performance when running ICR2. Don't know about NCR, but I would imagine it is similar. Clark

> I believe that Rick Genter has pointed out that ICR2 is a 32-bit program, so > you should see about 2x performance when running ICR2. Don't know about > NCR, but I would imagine it is similar. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be true only if you were running the upcoming Windows versions through WinNT 4.0, a true 32-bit operating system? -- Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/ Hawaii Network UserName: Buschwick

>> I believe that Rick Genter has pointed out that ICR2 is a 32-bit program, so >> you should see about 2x performance when running ICR2. Don't know about >> NCR, but I would imagine it is similar. >Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be true only if you were >running the upcoming Windows versions through WinNT 4.0, a true 32-bit operating >system? That depends on which parts of Win95 are 16-bit. I know a lot of the GDI (Graphics Device Kernal) still is, but that's not used for games. A game would use the Direct Draw APIs and not much else. Joe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >> I believe that Rick Genter has pointed out that ICR2 is a 32-bit program, so >> you should see about 2x performance when running ICR2. Don't know about >> NCR, but I would imagine it is similar. > >Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be true only if you were >running the upcoming Windows versions through WinNT 4.0, a true 32-bit > operating >system? >

Well, I don't think the processor cares what OS is running, just which instructions are used. I run ICR2 from a DOS prompt which starts up DOS4GW, which is as I understand, a 32-bit protected mode OS in and of itself. So as long as ICR2 is using 32-bit instructions, you will get the full P6 performance. Check out some of the benchmarks such as Chris' 3D Bench when running on a P6 as compared to a P5 with the same clock speed and graphics adapter. For example, even though I run NT4.0b1, if I choose to run a 16-bit program, it will still be slower on a P6 than on a P5 of equal clock speed. One thing to remember is that when the P5 w/MMX arrives (along with software to take advantage of the new instructions), that the issue will be further clouded. Clark

Would you mind explaning why that is (only faster in NT 4)? I have never heard that before. My understanding is that the interger portion of the ppro is quite a bit faster than it's pentuim brother. You will pay a price for running 16 bit apps on a ppro but so what.....how many 16 bit apps do you still have that depend on state of the art performance? Also at least some of the ppros come with L2 cache on the CPU that runs at CPU speed as oppsed to external speed. The price of the pentium and ppro 200 CPU are pretty close actually. The motherboards however are not $175 vs. $900. So it's really a price thing. If I was gonna dump close to 2K on a motherboard I'd wait for Intel to start putting that MMV on their CPU's, might come in handy for gamers. But if money is not really an issue I'd go for the ppro. I'm waitng for the ppro 300 and for the price to drop big time =]. Adam

> One thing to remember is that when the P5 w/MMX arrives (along with software > to take advantage of the new instructions), that the issue will be further > clouded. Yes, but that will not be occuring in high volume until early 97. Even so, the MMX instructions are also being ported over to the P6 CPUs as well. Right now I don't think the upgrade to a P6 is worth it just to play ICR2 and Nascar, as the origional poster inquired about. Unless he was planing on going to switch to WinNT, which by thw way will not be getting all of DirectX making Win95 the *** platform of choice (the only reason I haven't switched to WinNT 4.0). Without taking full advantage of the chip with the OS as well as applications, the performance just doesn't justify the cost. -- Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/ Hawaii Network UserName: Buschwick

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> If you plan on running Win95, the Pentium Pro will not offer much >> of a performance increase over a regular Pentium. Under WinNT however >> it will be significantly faster, perhaps as much as double. So, unless >> you plan on switching to WinNT 4.0 when it is released this fall, it >> really makes no sense to spend the extra money to upgrade to the Pro. > Would you mind explaning why that is (only faster in NT 4)? I have never >heard that before. My understanding is that the interger portion of the >ppro is quite a bit faster than it's pentuim brother. You will pay a price >for running 16 bit apps on a ppro but so what.....how many 16 bit apps do >you still have that depend on state of the art performance?

The problem is that so much of Win95 itself (not your apps) is still 16-bit that it does not benefit from the PPro (but this probably doesn't apply to games, that spend very little time in the Windows API, and a lot of time executing 32-bit instructions). Joe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Would you mind explaning why that is (only faster in NT 4)? I have never > heard that before. My understanding is that the interger portion of the > ppro is quite a bit faster than it's pentuim brother. You will pay a price > for running 16 bit apps on a ppro but so what.....how many 16 bit apps do > you still have that depend on state of the art performance? Also at least > some of the ppros come with L2 cache on the CPU that runs at CPU speed as > oppsed to external speed.

Well if you don't know already, Win95 still has 16-bit code. Its not totally 32-bit, that's why old Win3.1 apps still run on it. WinNT however, is a true 32-bit operating system with no underlying 16-bit code. Even some Win95 native software will not run on NT because of this. Many computer magazines have run tests showing that a Pentium Pro running Win95 is only slightly (and I mean very slightly) faster than a regular Pentium. However when the OS is switched to NT the speed in some cases doubles. It's MMX by the way, but you're right. I really can't justify spending the that much money on an upgrade knowing full well that within a year it will need to be replaced. What I would do (and incidently it's what I'm probably going to do), is just wait until spring and upgrade to an MMX P6, switch over to WinNT 4.0, and add a 3D video card. With the MMX, you basically get 24-bit color at 8-bit speeds as well as numerous other advantages. MMX will become the new standard for Windows games and multimedia. Come companies (like EPIC with their upcoming title UNREAL) are already coding for MMX for the added color depth alone. If someone really can't wait that long, the best option would be to just upgrade to the P5-200 for now. Then in the spring upgrade again to the P6. If you've got the money to burn, you might as well have the fastest computer avaliable at all times right? =) -- Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/ Hawaii Network UserName: Buschwick

writes: We do no operating system calls during driving in the DOS version, and very little in the Windows 95 version. For the Windows 95 version, however, you'll need to make sure that you have the latest DirectDraw drivers for your video card. Rick Genter Technical Lead, IndyCar Racing II Sierra On-Line, Inc.

> We do no operating system calls during driving in the DOS version, and > very little in the Windows 95 version. For the Windows 95 version, > however, you'll need to make sure that you have the latest DirectDraw > drivers for your video card. Although I know you really can't comment on unreleased products, I would appreciate an answer to one question. Will the upcoming Windows versions of Indycar2 and Nascar2 run through WinNT 4.0? I ask this only because some Win95 software will not run in the WinNT environment. -- Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/ Hawaii Network UserName: Buschwick

=> If someone really can't wait that long, the best option would be to just => upgrade => to the P5-200 for now. Then in the spring upgrade again to the P6. If => you've got => the money to burn, you might as well have the fastest computer avaliable at => all => times right? =) No, I will buy either a P5 200 or Cyrix's P200+, then upgrade to Cyrix's M2 next year. This will cost me a lot of Ks Chris

writes: Windows NT is not one of the target platforms for IndyCar Racing II. Rick Genter Technical Lead, IndyCar Racing II Sierra On-Line, Inc.

> Windows NT is not one of the target platforms for IndyCar Racing II. I realize this Rick, but I would just like to know if the Win95 version will be able to run under NT. You had said earlier that you used few operating system calls in 95 and that you will need DirectDraw drivers. WinNT 4.0 will be shipping with DirectDraw and DirectSound. Because of this, I had just assumed that the Win95 versions would indeed run in the NT environment. I would really appreciate if you could find this out for me. -- Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/ Hawaii Network UserName: Buschwick

>> Windows NT is not one of the target platforms for IndyCar Racing II. And that is really ashame since eventually there will only be NT. Windows 97 is supposed to be about 75% NT code, from there they will merge even more. bryon -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is still amazing how many people think that the year 2000 is the start of the next century. Bryon Lape

writes: Since it is not one of our target platforms, we aren't going to spend any time investigating it. (Can you tell that we're two weeks from shipping?) Rick Genter Technical Lead, IndyCar Racing II Sierra On-Line, Inc.

>writes: >> Will the upcoming Windows >>versions of Indycar2 and Nascar2 run through WinNT 4.0? I ask this only >>because some Win95 software will not run in the WinNT environment. >Windows NT is not one of the target platforms for IndyCar Racing II. Hi Rick, I'm curious. Do the Win95 game APIs allow you to take "exclusive" control of the CPU for a game? i.e., Can you disable Win95 multitasking while the game is running? Joe

> Since it is not one of our target platforms, we aren't going to spend any > time investigating it. (Can you tell that we're two weeks from shipping?) Well, I really didn't care about ICR2, my concern was about NascarII. I understand things, it's to be released this winter. This just happens to be a littlr prior to the time I had planed to upgrade to a Pentium Pro and NT 4.0, hence my intrest in this subject. Perhaps after the Win95 version of ICR2 is released, some kind soul will try and load it up on an NT machine for me and let me know the results. -- Emory University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Nascar Setups Page: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~ebusch/ Hawaii Network UserName: Buschwick

No, you can not. (I once heard a rumor about Microsoft extending DirectX to include DirectCPU and DirectMemory, which would give us even more DOS-like capabilities for locking down the cycles and memory we want, but that's all it's been so far, a rumor.) Rick Genter Technical Lead, IndyCar Racing II Sierra On-Line, Inc.

>Since it is not one of our target platforms, we aren't going to spend any >time investigating it. (Can you tell that we're two weeks from shipping?) Does that mean the ICR2 patch will ship in two weeks as well? Please, oh, please! <g> Dave "davids" Sparks Sequoia Motorsports

<<Windows NT is not one of the target platforms for IndyCar Racing II.>> Will the Win95 version of ICR2 be playable on NT? Nick _________________________________________________________________ #6 & #94 in the *real* quest for the Cup!!! My home away from home... http://users.aol.com/ntotoro/122895.htm _________________________________________________________________

>>> Windows NT is not one of the target platforms for IndyCar Racing II. > And that is really ashame since eventually there will only be NT. >Windows 97 is supposed to be about 75% NT code, from there they will merge >even more. And quite sensible it is too. Why have two separate development teams/source bases? I know there's a difference in the h/w requirements for the two platforms, but they're not far. Not like Win3.1x and NT were anyway. Stuart -- Stuart Booth Somewhere in Godalming, England, UK

The test I read in PC Magazine said that a PPro runs Win95 at about the same speed as an equivalent speed Pentium. It was a test of a 150mhz PPro and a 150mhz Pentium. I don't recall which issue it was, I read it at the library. I sort of agree with you. :) It makes sense to buy the most computing power you can afford when you DO make a purchase. MMX is a band-aid fix at best for the PC platform. It adds instructions to the processor to do some of the work of the video card, which speeds up some video functions. BUT it also uses processor time, so your occupancy rates will rise. Apparently the performance gain is enough to make up for that, we won't really know the facts until systems with MMX come on the market. Why not raise the PCI bus speed up from 66mhz (at the highest) to something more appropriate for today's powerful systems? I don't know if this is a function of the Pentium, or the chipset manufacturers, or whoever. But it would allow faster data throughput from the system's main memory and the video card. Sort of like upgrading to a faster modem. I recently bought a Pentium Pro system, it should show up at my door in about a week (i'm going nuts waiting for it!) I thought about waiting for the Pentium 200 introduction later this year, or MMX even later, but it came down to two things. The first is that I am not going to play the waiting game for the next latest thing, a person could go ga-ga doing that and never buy a machine. Second, my PPro200 system cost $3500 with all the goodies (check out Quantex's ads, the sm2 P6 200.) When the Pentium 200 comes out, i'm betting it will be priced somewhere close to that. So I figure I bought about equal 16-bit processing power, and vastly superior 32-bit power for graphics and other 'serious' apps. If i'm wrong, hell i'll just put Unix on it and start a small ISP or something. ;)

: (Can you tell that we're two weeks from shipping?) Thank you. It sounds like you will make your projected release date. This will be a wonderful birthday present. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> What is better? A Pentium 200 or a Pentium PRO 200 for indycar 2 or > nascar ? I would be greatful if anybody could give me some answers. > Thanks > Joost Don't quote me on this but I would imagine the Pro would be faster. This is because most games developed today are compiled to 32-bit code. So assuming this is true, the Pro will run the game quicker. I have however not tested this theory. If you are thinking of getting an upgrade why not get the Cyrix 6x86 200 Mhz, as this will run the game very fast reguardless of whether the code is 16-bit or 32-bit. Chris --

Having seen ICR2 running on both a 200Mhz Pentium Pro and an early 200Mhz Pentium, I can assure you that the Pro is still faster on ICR2. (Same video, but different disk - but disk shouldn't matter.) At this time, suitably equipped 200Mhz Pros are the fastest ICR2 boxes around. (Suitably equipped means "with a fast enough video board" - I have a #9 imagine and I've sesen Matrox Milleniums too.) -- Brian Wong Systems Engineering Group (Servers)

>Why not raise the PCI bus speed up from 66mhz (at the highest) to >something more appropriate for today's powerful systems? I don't know if this >is a function of the Pentium, or the chipset manufacturers, or whoever. But it >would allow faster data throughput from the system's main memory and the video >card. Sort of like upgrading to a faster modem. There is absolutely no reason to be cranking up PCI in today's systems. 32-bit 66MHz PCI has a burst transfer speed of 267 MB/sec, which is far in excess of the capability of either most PC memory systems or their peripherals. Making it go faster would simply raise the prices and would deliver basically no useful value to user. (The situation may be different for servers, but that's not what we're talking about here.) Consider the data requirements of a framebuffer. A 1024x1024x24-bit display refreshed at 30 fps would consume 3 MB * 30 fps = 90 MB/sec if you refreshed every single pixel in every single frame. Geometric modelling framebuffers consume even less bandwidth, and bear in mind that this is a pretty severe test in and of itself. ICR2 in SVGA runs the display at 640x480x8 (I think) - 30fps is therefore about 9 MB/sec. -- Brian Wong Systems Engineering Group (Servers)

Firstly PCI in today's systems runs at 33Mhz, not 66Mhz. Secondly, if PCI makes no difference, why is there such a marked performance difference in terms of graphics throughput between systems based upon 60Mhz boards and those with 66Mhz? Thirdly, BURST transfer rate is a poor indicator of performance. Graphics data is not transferred intermitently, it is a sustained transfer rate which is important. It's like hi-fi companies quoting "peak" power to make ridiculous power claims. Finally, the shift to 3D accelerator cards is partly to limit the amount of data moving through the PCI bus bottleneck. If you need only move basic graphics data and instructions for the on-board chipset, it cuts down all the massive data transfer overhead. Why do that if it can all be shifted through the bus quickly? A faster PCI bus would give more benefit than upgrading to YET another Pentium, at least in games terms. The problem is that the motherboards would be difficult (costly) to make, the peripherals too (and we would have to upgrade to take advantage of it, and the current DRAM is too slow to operate on motherboards faster than 66Mhz. Newer S-DRAM will allow increases up to 75Mhz, although this in itself could cause problems since PCI bus speed is almost invariably inextricably tied in to the motherboard speed (only one exception I know of). Cheers! John _________________________________ __ _____| |_____ __ _________| |__| :| John Wallace | |__| |_________ \ :| |::| :| Team WW Racing TSW | |::| | / > :| |::| :|_________________________________| |::| | < / :|__|::|____:/ Sim Racing News \.____|::|__| \ /_______:/ \::/ http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/pulse/index.htm \::/ \._______\