PPro 200 vs Pent P200 vs Cyrix P200+

In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)?

> In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything > else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)? The Cyrix P200+. GP2 doesn't use the floating-point unit which is a tad slower in the Cyrix. But it creams the P200 everyehere else. The PPro 200 would the choice if the game were true 32-bit code, but it's not, and PPro's are a bit slower than their Pentium equivelents in 16-bit code.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> >> In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything >> else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)? > >The Cyrix P200+. >GP2 doesn't use the floating-point unit which is a tad slower in the >Cyrix. But it creams the P200 everyehere else. The PPro 200 would the >choice if the game were true 32-bit code, but it's not, and PPro's are a >bit slower than their Pentium equivelents in 16-bit code.

First hand reports from P6/200 owners would suggest otherwise for GP2. Check out Sim Racing News. Clark

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything > > else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)? > The Cyrix P200+. > GP2 doesn't use the floating-point unit which is a tad slower in the > Cyrix. But it creams the P200 everyehere else. The PPro 200 would the > choice if the game were true 32-bit code, but it's not, and PPro's are a > bit slower than their Pentium equivelents in 16-bit code.

Do you think you're doing this guy some kind of favor by telling him thisuseless Cyrix propaganda. The only creaming going on was in your pants when you got your cheapo processor. Any objective computer expert would recommend the Intel processors over the Cyrix. The only place the Cyrix has any real advantage is in price. GP2 does use 32-bit code and it will run the fastest on a Pentium Pro. Just because something works well for you doesn't mean it is the best solution. Get a life. Dana Bailes

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > The Cyrix P200+. > > GP2 doesn't use the floating-point unit which is a tad slower in the > > Cyrix. But it creams the P200 everyehere else. The PPro 200 would the > > choice if the game were true 32-bit code, but it's not, and PPro's are a > > bit slower than their Pentium equivelents in 16-bit code. > Do you think you're doing this guy some kind of favor by telling him > thisuseless Cyrix propaganda. The only creaming going on was in your > pants when you got your cheapo processor. Any objective computer expert > would recommend the Intel processors over the Cyrix. The only place the > Cyrix has any real advantage is in price. > GP2 does use 32-bit code and it will run the fastest on a Pentium Pro. > Just because something works well for you doesn't mean it is the best > solution. Get a life.

Not true - the so-called "32-bit code" in GP2 is merely the 32-bit memory extender. As far as the Pentium Pro is concerned, GP2 is 16-bit as it uses 16-bit instructions under the 32-bit memory extender. As far as the "computer experts" are concerned - most would agree that Intel is the only way to go, but some choose Cyrix that don't need the FPU functions. In the meantime, be nice - this guy likes Cyrix. It's not a crime.

>> In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything >> else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)? You don't say what motherboard you have now, so I am assuming that you need a new motherboard to accompany your new chip. Given this, the p200 is definitely out of contention because it's price is ridiculous. around $750 for just the chip) So, the decision is between the Pp200 and the Cyrix P200+ The Pp200 costs a tad over $500 and requires a $350 motherboard. (Cheapest motherboard I've seen.) So, we are looking at about $850. The Cyrix requires a 75mhz motherboard and , as far as I know, the only one currently avaible is the one from DFI. I don't know the price of it, but I guesstimate that it will be about $230. Combine this with the price of the chip, last time I looked, about $500. (You might be able to get an IBM 686 for quite a bit less, but I haven't looked.) Total...$730. So, the question is whether the Pp200 is worth $120 bucks extra. Personally, if I had to choose, I think it is. However, I would wait for the MMX versions of the Ppro and see what happens on the 3d accelerator front. Hope this helps, Mike P.S. If you do get the Pp200, make sure that you get vidspeed to ensure that you are getting the full performance.

Quoted text (22 lines)

>>> In GP2, which would be the best for the money considering everything >>> else being equal (ie. video card, mobo, etc.)? >You don't say what motherboard you have now, so I am assuming that you >need a new motherboard to accompany your new chip. Given this, the >p200 is definitely out of contention because it's price is ridiculous. >around $750 for just the chip) So, the decision is between the Pp200 >and the Cyrix P200+ The Pp200 costs a tad over $500 and requires a >$350 motherboard. (Cheapest motherboard I've seen.) So, we are looking >at about $850. The Cyrix requires a 75mhz motherboard and , as far as >I know, the only one currently avaible is the one from DFI. I don't >know the price of it, but I guesstimate that it will be about $230. >Combine this with the price of the chip, last time I looked, about >$500. (You might be able to get an IBM 686 for quite a bit less, but I >haven't looked.) Total...$730. So, the question is whether the Pp200 >is worth $120 bucks extra. Personally, if I had to choose, I think it >is. However, I would wait for the MMX versions of the Ppro and see >what happens on the 3d accelerator front. >Hope this helps, >Mike >P.S. If you do get the Pp200, make sure that you get vidspeed to >ensure that you are getting the full performance.

Sorry, not "vidspeed" but "fastvid." :)

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Someone not cited wrote > > > <Snip> > > > The PPro 200 would the > > > choice if the game were true 32-bit code, but it's not, and PPro's are a > > > bit slower than their Pentium equivelents in 16-bit code. > > <Snip> > > GP2 does use 32-bit code and it will run the fastest on a Pentium Pro. > > Just because something works well for you doesn't mean it is the best > > solution. Get a life. > Not true - the so-called "32-bit code" in GP2 is merely the 32-bit memory > extender. As far as the Pentium Pro is concerned, GP2 is 16-bit as it uses > 16-bit instructions under the 32-bit memory extender. > <Snip>

Not true - In the past there have been "memory extenders" that 16 bit code can use to grab more memory. DOS4GW is different. It is a TRUE 32 bit environment, and code running under it can be written as a flat memory model that will allow the P6 to run as it was intended. An exception might be certain DOS services like disk accesses. But these are always slow, and most sim designers would not perform them in the middle of the action. Vesa video utilities can also be implemented as 32 bit programs, and I believe the Univbe/Display Doctor, or whatever it's called, is such a utility. So the designers of sims have the ability to deliver a sim that the P6 will be able to take advantage of. In order to save time and effort, some sims might use old modules that are P6 crippling 16 bit code. Until we hear from someone who designed F1GP2, or someone who has dis- assembled the binary code and examined the instructions, we can only speculate. I speculate that F1GP is designed to run as a 32 bit application. I speculate that the P6 is currently the best processor to run F1GP2. The reason I would make this assumption is that the "LOG:ON" numbers, and the descriptions of how people set their detail levels and frame rates, show the P6 is the clear leader. With these results, why argue about the internals, which we will probably never see? The P6 runs it better, and I mean better by a margin that is clearly visible on the screen. I am assuming people are telling the truth. I've never seen F1GP2 on a Pentium. For anyone who decides to get a P6, the older P6 with the original "A Step" Orion chip set had problems. My "B Step" Orion runs great, and the Natoma chip sets run better. Get fastvid, this bumps your PCI interface from about 20MB/sec to about 90MB/sec. I agree. There are technical arguments and experiences to prove a point. However, some prefer the more direct "you suck". Larry =========================================================================== Larry Lindstrom. Consultant - Unix - X Window - Comms Reality, there's nothing else quite like it.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Do you think you're doing this guy some kind of favor by telling him > thisuseless Cyrix propaganda. The only creaming going on was in your > pants when you got your cheapo processor. Any objective computer > expert would recommend the Intel processors over the Cyrix. The only > place the Cyrix has any real advantage is in price. > GP2 does use 32-bit code and it will run the fastest on a Pentium Pro. > Just because something works well for you doesn't mean it is the best > solution. Get a life. > Dana Bailes

Me get a life? Gee, when last I checked GP2 ran on DOS, also, when last I checked, DOS was 16-bit. That means GP2 is 16-bit and will run just as fast on a Pentium or Cyrix as on a PPro (clock rates being equal). Or does your 8-bit brain have a problem with that. I'll tell ya what, Test them yourself, if you have access to all three sets of components, and you will see what I mean. Unless you're speaking from what you've read instead of what you've seen. I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+ is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on DOS based games. Botch

>I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+ >is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they >scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on >DOS based games. Unless all of the P6 owners are lying about frame rates, the P6 is DEFINITELY faster than the P5 or Cyrix chip on GP2. Clark

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > Me get a life? Gee, when last I checked GP2 ran on DOS, also, when last > > I checked, DOS was 16-bit. That means GP2 is 16-bit and will run just as > > fast on a Pentium or Cyrix as on a PPro (clock rates being equal). Or > > does your 8-bit brain have a problem with that. > > I'll tell ya what, Test them yourself, if you have access to all three > > sets of components, and you will see what I mean. Unless you're speaking > > from what you've read instead of what you've seen. > > I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+ > > is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they > > scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on > > DOS based games. > I got a Pentium 166mhz with 32MB RAM and Hercules Dynamite 128/video, and i got a PPro200mhz with the same > specs... My pal got a P200 with same specs to, and i just got one thing to say... > My PPro200 beats the shit out my pal's P200 in F1GP2, i can run it with all the details on on my PPro200.. > and don' come here an say that the preformans on these machines are the same.... > And the dos extender is 32bit and put's the DOS to side so it can run the computer in tru 32 bit mode... > Simpel and easy... DOS sucks so they must make rutines that put the DOS aside... > Frode Dufey..

I can concur with your assesment of the situation. The PPro runs GP2 better than the P5 200. When the log:on scores were being tossed around here awhile back my PPro was the highest scoring machine listed, at the time. I don't recall what my scores were, at this moment, but it was the highest posted of any machine, Pro or not. I can run GP2 with FULL detail on and at Monaco at the start from the BACK of the grid I get 24.6 frames (as I recall) and the PO is 160 at the first turn. That is the highest that it gets anywhere on the course. In the tunnel it drops below 100 and also at several other places on the track. Frankly, I'm bored with this argument. So you do it and I'll jump in once in awhile and concur....grin. JEB

I have had a Dell PPro200 (32MB RAM) for about a month now, and have racked up some serious hours on the GP2, Nascar, INdy, and NFS tracks. Although I was really interested in a MGA video card, Dell only offered the 2MB #9 ViRGE or Imagine. I stuck with the cheaper ViRGE since I was thinking of replacing it anyway. I run the sims as deedicated DOS sessions after booting to Win95. On certain tracks Nascar is choppy with everything on, ICR does much better, and GP2 runs best with most textures off and trackside detail one notch down during races. PO still can push 200% at Monaco at full detail, but was over 300 on my 486. Fastvid doesn't seem to give my card a boost. (Vspeed is 19MB with Univbe)Is there an advantage running from a boot disk?

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Me get a life? Gee, when last I checked GP2 ran on DOS, also, when last > I checked, DOS was 16-bit. That means GP2 is 16-bit and will run just as > fast on a Pentium or Cyrix as on a PPro (clock rates being equal). Or > does your 8-bit brain have a problem with that. > I'll tell ya what, Test them yourself, if you have access to all three > sets of components, and you will see what I mean. Unless you're speaking > from what you've read instead of what you've seen. > I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+ > is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they > scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on > DOS based games.

I got a Pentium 166mhz with 32MB RAM and Hercules Dynamite 128/video, and i got a PPro200mhz with the same specs... My pal got a P200 with same specs to, and i just got one thing to say... My PPro200 beats the shit out my pal's P200 in F1GP2, i can run it with all the details on on my PPro200.. and don' come here an say that the preformans on these machines are the same.... And the dos extender is 32bit and put's the DOS to side so it can run the computer in tru 32 bit mode... Simpel and easy... DOS sucks so they must make rutines that put the DOS aside... Frode Dufey..

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Me get a life? Gee, when last I checked GP2 ran on DOS, also, when last > I checked, DOS was 16-bit. That means GP2 is 16-bit and will run just as > fast on a Pentium or Cyrix as on a PPro (clock rates being equal). Or > does your 8-bit brain have a problem with that. > I'll tell ya what, Test them yourself, if you have access to all three > sets of components, and you will see what I mean. Unless you're speaking > from what you've read instead of what you've seen. > I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+ > is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they > scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on > DOS based games.

I got a Pentium 166mhz with 32MB RAM and Hercules Dynamite 128/video, and i got a PPro200mhz with the same specs... My pal got a P200 with same specs to, and i just got one thing to say... My PPro200 beats the shit out my pal's P200 in F1GP2, i can run it with all the details on on my PPro200.. and don' come here an say that the preformans on these machines are the same.... And the dos extender is 32bit and put's the DOS to side so it can run the computer in tru 32 bit mode... Simpel and easy... DOS sucks so they must make rutines that put the DOS aside... maybe it is your brain that is 8-bit Frode Dufey..

Do ya think posting it twice makes your brain 16-bit? Botch

Quoted text (16 lines)

> [snip] > >> Fastvid doesn't seem to give my card a boost. (Vspeed is 19MB with > >> Univbe)Is there an advantage running from a boot disk? > >I have an Intel Venus PP-200 with Matrox millenium, and I get much > >better performance than this. Are you using fastvid? If not, you > >should. Without it, I get 29 MB/S using the vidspeed test, with it > >I get 93 MB/S. Of course, the Matrox comes with a special version of > [snip] > My PPro 200 also performs below others. It's a custom-built system with an > Intel ATX mb (Natoma chipset), 32 megs ram, and a Diamond Stealth 64 2 > meg VRAM. I have a theory that the Matrox Millenium works better with the Pro > than other cards, it seems to blow them all away. I have tried Fastvid and > UniVBE, they made no difference with my Diamond. My roommate has a Gateway P166 > with a Matrox, if he agrees to it i'm going to try his card in my computer.

I suspect you might be correct about the Matrox and the PPro. I have a 4 meg Matrox and my scores on all the latest benchmarks going around lately, GP2, LONGBOW, CHRIS'S, QUAKE...etc, my system outperforms the Non-Matrox PPros too. JEB

I have an Intel Venus PP-200 with Matrox millenium, and I get much better performance than this. Are you using fastvid? If not, you should. Without it, I get 29 MB/S using the vidspeed test, with it I get 93 MB/S. Of course, the Matrox comes with a special version of Nascar, which produces a rock-solid 30 FPS, even with all cars and every possible option turned on. GP2 claims that it can produce 25.6 FPS with all (non-mirror) details on, but I run it without sky texture to prevent the occasional slowdown in traffic. Using the new 1.0.2 version of Indycar which has an FPS display (ctrl-F), I get a solid 30/31 FPS in every situation. Every one of the "hungry" DOS games I've tried on this system has performed very well. Even a system like this won't last long though, all you have to due is up the resolution to 1280x1024 and you can bring any of today's PCs to their knees. -- --------------- Scott Pritchett

[snip]

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Fastvid doesn't seem to give my card a boost. (Vspeed is 19MB with >> Univbe)Is there an advantage running from a boot disk? >I have an Intel Venus PP-200 with Matrox millenium, and I get much >better performance than this. Are you using fastvid? If not, you >should. Without it, I get 29 MB/S using the vidspeed test, with it >I get 93 MB/S. Of course, the Matrox comes with a special version of

[snip] My PPro 200 also performs below others. It's a custom-built system with an Intel ATX mb (Natoma chipset), 32 megs ram, and a Diamond Stealth 64 2 meg VRAM. I have a theory that the Matrox Millenium works better with the Pro than other cards, it seems to blow them all away. I have tried Fastvid and UniVBE, they made no difference with my Diamond. My roommate has a Gateway P166 with a Matrox, if he agrees to it i'm going to try his card in my computer.

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > I have had a Dell PPro200 (32MB RAM) for about a month now, and have > > racked up some serious hours on the GP2, Nascar, INdy, and NFS tracks. > > Although I was really interested in a MGA video card, Dell only offered > > the 2MB #9 ViRGE or Imagine. I stuck with the cheaper ViRGE since I was > > thinking of replacing it anyway. I run the sims as deedicated DOS > > sessions after booting to Win95. On certain tracks Nascar is choppy > > with everything on, ICR does much better, and GP2 runs best with most > > textures off and trackside detail one notch down during races. PO still > > can push 200% at Monaco at full detail, but was over 300 on my 486. > > Fastvid doesn't seem to give my card a boost. (Vspeed is 19MB with > > Univbe)Is there an advantage running from a boot disk? > I have an Intel Venus PP-200 with Matrox millenium, and I get much > better performance than this. Are you using fastvid? If not, you > should. Without it, I get 29 MB/S using the vidspeed test, with it > I get 93 MB/S. Of course, the Matrox comes with a special version of > Nascar, which produces a rock-solid 30 FPS, even with all cars and > every possible option turned on. GP2 claims that it can produce > 25.6 FPS with all (non-mirror) details on, but I run it without sky > texture to prevent the occasional slowdown in traffic. Using the new > 1.0.2 version of Indycar which has an FPS display (ctrl-F), I get a > solid 30/31 FPS in every situation. > Every one of the "hungry" DOS games I've tried on this system has > performed very well. Even a system like this won't last long though, > all you have to due is up the resolution to 1280x1024 and you can > bring any of today's PCs to their knees. > -- > --------------- > Scott Pritchett

Do you think Pentium Pro 200 on Intel Venus board with Hercules Dynamite 128 video card woudl be better than havine Matrox Millenium card? I haven't seen any cbench scores on Hercules board yet and that's why I'm asking your advice. Thanks! Ray

Quoted text (11 lines)

>I have had a Dell PPro200 (32MB RAM) for about a month now, and have >racked up some serious hours on the GP2, Nascar, INdy, and NFS tracks. >Although I was really interested in a MGA video card, Dell only offered >the 2MB #9 ViRGE or Imagine. I stuck with the cheaper ViRGE since I was >thinking of replacing it anyway. I run the sims as deedicated DOS >sessions after booting to Win95. On certain tracks Nascar is choppy >with everything on, ICR does much better, and GP2 runs best with most >textures off and trackside detail one notch down during races. PO still >can push 200% at Monaco at full detail, but was over 300 on my 486. >Fastvid doesn't seem to give my card a boost. (Vspeed is 19MB with >Univbe)Is there an advantage running from a boot disk?

Possibly, if using fastvid from a dos boot increases vspeed's score. Unless you can run fastvid from Win95's DOS. I don't use Win95 much, just NT4 and DOS. However, the increase of vspeed's score in not really indicative of the results in GP2, my scores were in the mid 20MB to high 70MB from vspeed without and with fastvid, but GP2 only achieved a couple of fps more. (BTW, my system is Supermicro PPro 200 with MGA). You should be getting higher scores from fastvid and Vspeed though, maybe Win95 DOS is preventing it.

: : Do you think Pentium Pro 200 on Intel Venus board with Hercules Dynamite : 128 video card woudl be better than havine Matrox Millenium card? I : haven't seen any cbench scores on Hercules board yet and that's why I'm : asking your advice. : I have Intel Venus PPro 233MHz(oc) svga-cbench scores (FASTVID loaded) are Millenium= 92.4, Hercules 64(ARK2000pv)= 92.6, Dynamite 128= 92.7 and Mystique 90.2. GP2 with millenium VGA all graphics turned on and 25.6 fps in Monaco max processor occ. was 90% (vga cbench= 388.5) Svga without clouds and mirrors texture and 19.2 fps max p. occ. was 110% -Tiska

Hello Timo, What are the jumper settings for a 3.5 X clock multiplier on the Venus? The manual that came with my MB only describes the settings for up to 200 MHz. Thanks, skp -- --------------- Scott Pritchett

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > Do you think you're doing this guy some kind of favor by telling him > > thisuseless Cyrix propaganda. The only creaming going on was in your > > pants when you got your cheapo processor. Any objective computer > expert would recommend the Intel processors over the Cyrix. The only > place the Cyrix h > > GP2 does use 32-bit code and it will run the fastest on a Pentium Pro. > > Just because something works well for you doesn't mean it is the best > > solution. Get a life. > > Dana Bailes > Me get a life? Gee, when last I checked GP2 ran on DOS, also, when last > I checked, DOS was 16-bit. That means GP2 is 16-bit and will run just as > fast on a Pentium or Cyrix as on a PPro (clock rates being equal). Or > does your 8-bit brain have a problem with that. > I'll tell ya what, Test them yourself, if you have access to all three > sets of components, and you will see what I mean. Unless you're speaking > from what you've read instead of what you've seen. > I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+ > is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they > scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on > DOS based games. > Botch

Yes, GP2 runs in DOS and DOS is 16 bit, but when GP2 is actually run from DOS it runs an extender which tucks away DOS and allows the processor to run in protected mode which is 32-bit. Hence, the Pentium Pro is faster than the P200. As a few examples, my computer (PPRO 200) gets 21 fps in Quake in 640 x480, 81.1 on Chris Dial's 3D bench, and an occupancy at the start of Quick Race (Italy, position 6) of 92% with all forward textures on except sky, only smoke in the mirrors, and a frame rate of 18.2. I am curious if your P200 blows those results away??

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Me get a life? Gee, when last I checked GP2 ran on DOS, also, when last >I checked, DOS was 16-bit. That means GP2 is 16-bit and will run just as >fast on a Pentium or Cyrix as on a PPro (clock rates being equal). Or >does your 8-bit brain have a problem with that. >I'll tell ya what, Test them yourself, if you have access to all three >sets of components, and you will see what I mean. Unless you're speaking >from what you've read instead of what you've seen. >I don't acutally own a Cyrix. I have a Intel P200. But the Cyrix p200+ >is faster just about on everything. I've tested 2 PPro 200's and they >scream on NT and 32-bit Win95 apps, but are no better than my P200 on >DOS based games.

Well, after having checked with a bunch of DOS game developers, the concensus is that most of that code under DOS4GW would be running in 32-bit mode. And I'm dead sure about ICR2, since I asked and got a point blank answer. -- Brian Wong Enterprise Engineering