GP2 Performance Help: P200 vs. Matrox

Hi there, I have a P166 and a miro SV 20 graphics card. My log:on results are 323 CPU 120 Graphics Card I want to upgrade my hardware. Do you think I should buy another graphics card e.g. a matrox or a P200 ???

> Hi there, >I have a P166 and a miro SV 20 graphics card. My log:on results are >323 CPU >120 Graphics Card >I want to upgrade my hardware. Do you think I should buy another graphics >card e.g. a matrox or a P200 ??? UPgrading from a p5-166 ???? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The most civilized civilizations are as close to barba- rism as polished iron is to rust. Rivarol =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Hi there, > I have a P166 and a miro SV 20 graphics card. My log:on results are > 323 CPU > 120 Graphics Card > I want to upgrade my hardware. Do you think I should buy another graphics > card e.g. a matrox or a P200 ???

You probably want the new graphics card. For a 166, total system performance is mainly a function of the system bus speed and changing the CPU clock will give very little performance increase. I don't think that you can completely trust GP2's numbers but for reference, my P166 with a Matrox MGA 2Mb gets 322 CPU 463 Video Speed. Jon Robinson

:> I have a P166 and a miro SV 20 graphics card. My log:on results are :> 323 CPU :> 120 Graphics Card :> :> I want to upgrade my hardware. Do you think I should buy another graphics :> card e.g. a matrox or a P200 ??? :> :You probably want the new graphics card. For a 166, total system :performance is mainly a function of the system bus speed and changing the :CPU clock will give very little performance increase. :I don't think that you can completely trust GP2's numbers but for :reference, my :P166 with a Matrox MGA 2Mb gets :322 CPU :463 Video Speed. I don't know how these calculations work, but my "lowly" (in GP2's eyes anyway) P133 with 2Mb Matrox and UniVBE manages: Speed (c.f. DX2-66): 259 (322 * 133/166) Video speed: 497 !! Ken -- ___ ,_, ___ Ken Nicolson (o,o) (o,o) ,,,(o,o),,, -"-"- -"-"- -"-"- +44 xxx xxx xxxx hoots about my opinions. Web: http://www.ride.demon.co.uk

Quoted text (20 lines)

>> Hi there, >> I have a P166 and a miro SV 20 graphics card. My log:on results are >> 323 CPU >> 120 Graphics Card >> I want to upgrade my hardware. Do you think I should buy another graphics >> card e.g. a matrox or a P200 ??? >You probably want the new graphics card. For a 166, total system >performance is mainly a function of the system bus speed and changing the >CPU clock will give very little performance increase. >I don't think that you can completely trust GP2's numbers but for >reference, my >P166 with a Matrox MGA 2Mb gets >322 CPU >463 Video Speed.

After seeing your figures there I am beginning to wonder what the GP2 log is really calculating for the video speed. The reason I say that is because I've got a P133 with a Matrox Millenium card. I get around 270 for the CPU rating which makes sense but I get right at 460 on the video speed. That figure seems to be right in line with what I'm seeing posted here from people with a setup like yours (P166 and Matrox). In fact I seem to remember seeing posts from people with P200 and PPro200 CPUs and Matrox cards and they all seem to be getting right around 460-470 on the video speed. It almost looks like the video speed on the Matrox is not being influenced by the CPU speed. At least not as far as GP2 is concerned. Based on this I would have to agree with your statement. It looks like once you reach a certain point (P133??) the video card becomes more important than the CPU speed. I would be interested to see what kind of video speed is recorded for people with a P120 or P100 with a Matrox card. I wonder at what point the video speed starts to drop off? >Jon Robinson -- Ron McGlade - Team OS/2 EMail ID: ronmc EMail Domain: ibm.net or primenet.com

SNIP!

Quoted text (29 lines)

> >reference, my > >P166 with a Matrox MGA 2Mb gets > >322 CPU > >463 Video Speed. > After seeing your figures there I am beginning to wonder what the GP2 > log is really calculating for the video speed. The reason I say that is > because I've got a P133 with a Matrox Millenium card. I get around 270 > for the CPU rating which makes sense but I get right at 460 on the video > speed. That figure seems to be right in line with what I'm seeing posted > here from people with a setup like yours (P166 and Matrox). In fact I > seem to remember seeing posts from people with P200 and PPro200 CPUs and > Matrox cards and they all seem to be getting right around 460-470 on the > video speed. It almost looks like the video speed on the Matrox is not > being influenced by the CPU speed. At least not as far as GP2 is > concerned. > Based on this I would have to agree with your statement. It looks like > once you reach a certain point (P133??) the video card becomes more > important than the CPU speed. I would be interested to see what kind of > video speed is recorded for people with a P120 or P100 with a Matrox > card. I wonder at what point the video speed starts to drop off? > >Jon Robinson > -- > Ron McGlade - Team OS/2 > EMail ID: ronmc EMail Domain: ibm.net or primenet.com

Well, my P100 only gets 190 with a 4mb Millenium.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> SNIP! > > >reference, my > > >P166 with a Matrox MGA 2Mb gets > > >322 CPU > > >463 Video Speed. > > Matrox cards and they all seem to be getting right around 460-470 on the > > video speed. It almost looks like the video speed on the Matrox is not > > being influenced by the CPU speed. At least not as far as GP2 is > > concerned.

[snip] These are just my thoughts, but... Generally in DOS games, CPU power does NOT affect to video speed. Because DOS cannot use any acceleration functions used in Windows, only important thing is a raw copying speed from main memory to graphics card memory. GP2 measures that copying speed and if you have fast simms, a PCI-bus and a good graphics card with fast memory, you will likely get high results, no matter what CPU you have. Now, almost all Pentiums and PPros are made with 60MHz or 66MHz bus speed and a PCI-chipset, so it's just normal to get equal video performance with P-100 and PPro-200 (both has 66MHz bus). This is not a Millennium-only feature, all craphics cards will behave the same way. Now, notice one interesting thing: 60MHz bus is slower than 66MHz, and usually this affect to video performance too. So P-90, 120, 150, 180, PPro-150, 180 and 6x86-P150+ WILL therefore get a bit lower video results. I have a P-100 and Millennium 4MB, which gets 193 CPU and 452 video speed. I overclocked it to 120MHz, so that the bus-speed dropped to 60MHz and I got something 230 CPU speed, but ONLY 420 video speed. Game speed was exactly same as before, so I jumped my mb back to 100MHz. Another interesting point is, what would be the video speed for 6x86-P200+, which has 75MHz bus. Propably it would beat all previous records! Tomi

To add to this discussion, I must say that I had originally a P100 and a Trident 9440 video board (argh!). I can't recall their indexes, but I upgraded the CPU to a P150 and the video board to a Diamond Stealth 2001 (Trio 64+), and the video indexes grew up 3x, but I still couldn't tur on much stuff under SVGA. Then I returned the Diamond, and the video index obviously went down, but the sensation is almost the same. Then I overclocked the P150 to 166 Mhz, and the video index went up again. I am now wondering if I should buy a Matrox to see any difference (in fps, at least)... [snip snip] > >In fact I > > seem to remember seeing posts from people with P200 and PPro200 CPUs and > > Matrox cards and they all seem to be getting right around 460-470 on the

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > video speed. It almost looks like the video speed on the Matrox is not > > being influenced by the CPU speed. At least not as far as GP2 is > > concerned. > > Based on this I would have to agree with your statement. It looks like > > once you reach a certain point (P133??) the video card becomes more > > important than the CPU speed. I would be interested to see what kind of > > video speed is recorded for people with a P120 or P100 with a Matrox > > card. I wonder at what point the video speed starts to drop off? > > >Jon Robinson > > -- > > Ron McGlade - Team OS/2 > > EMail ID: ronmc EMail Domain: ibm.net or primenet.com > Well, my P100 only gets 190 with a 4mb Millenium.

mumbled:

Quoted text (33 lines)

>SNIP! >> >reference, my >> >P166 with a Matrox MGA 2Mb gets >> >322 CPU >> >463 Video Speed. >> After seeing your figures there I am beginning to wonder what the GP2 >> log is really calculating for the video speed. The reason I say that is >> because I've got a P133 with a Matrox Millenium card. I get around 270 >> for the CPU rating which makes sense but I get right at 460 on the video >> speed. That figure seems to be right in line with what I'm seeing posted >> here from people with a setup like yours (P166 and Matrox). In fact I >> seem to remember seeing posts from people with P200 and PPro200 CPUs and >> Matrox cards and they all seem to be getting right around 460-470 on the >> video speed. It almost looks like the video speed on the Matrox is not >> being influenced by the CPU speed. At least not as far as GP2 is >> concerned. >> Based on this I would have to agree with your statement. It looks like >> once you reach a certain point (P133??) the video card becomes more >> important than the CPU speed. I would be interested to see what kind of >> video speed is recorded for people with a P120 or P100 with a Matrox >> card. I wonder at what point the video speed starts to drop off? >> >Jon Robinson >> -- >> Ron McGlade - Team OS/2 >> EMail ID: ronmc EMail Domain: ibm.net or primenet.com >Well, my P100 only gets 190 with a 4mb Millenium.

and my performance should be P90-P100 (not FPU-performance), my figures are: CPU: 238 Video: 171 BTW I have a S3-Trio64. Do you think Microprose has some sort of deal with the hardware world? Because I am now considering upgrading my system. Before GP2 I was REALLY satisfied (EVEN with Win95; I have 32Mb). Brian _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Wisdom is the difference between knowledge and experience.... _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- HomePage : http://www.worldonline.nl/~brian -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

I have a P100 and a Trio64V+ (2Mb), running s3spdup. Speed (c.f. DX2-66): 193 Video speed: 472 I had a great improvement on speed changing the motherboard: before I had an Intel Plato 2 and got something like: CPU:193 , Video: 328; now I have an Intel motherboard also but with the newest chipset 430VX.

I'm using a P133 with 16RAM and 1meg ATI video card. In VGA mode I can get all the details and textures and the CPU Occupancy can still manage to not go over 125. At this rate it is damn fast.

mumbled: Can you tell me what s3spdup is? Huhm, I thought I had P90-P100 performance with my overclocked AMD better (!): Speed (c.f. DX2-66): 238 Video speed: 171 (Trio64 (2 Mb)). Go figure ! Brian _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Wisdom is the difference between knowledge and experience.... _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- HomePage : http://www.worldonline.nl/~brian -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_