Doom3 Benchmarks out!

you would have been really really! jealous of my DX4/100 then

--
Tony DiMarzio


"Andrew MacPherson" wrote in message
ddress_disguised...
In article ,
(RayO) wrote:

On the 4/66 it rocked.

It's rather sad, but even after all these years the phrase "DX2/66" still
causes a little twinge of excitement in some deep, dark pleasure centre in
my brain. It was such an object of unaffordable techno-lust that the
effects have obviously scarred me for life :-)

Andrew McP

In article ,
(Tony DiMarzio) wrote:

you would have been really really! jealous of my DX4/100 then

Stop it, you're messing with my dreams! :-)

Andrew McP

Highlandish wrote:

Quoth The Raven "RayO" in


"Highlandish" wrote in message
...


I had a 486sx2/50 (no math coprocessor) and doom1 S/W ran like a
dog with 2 legs, it was literally a slide show. I didn't upgrade
until the P90 was a year old. who could afford it back then?

You probably had a bad chipset, it made a big difference back
then, even 486sx should've done better than that poor dog.
I ran it on 33/386DX and 486/66DX2. On the 386 it
chopped, not a complete slide show, but not
pleasant either. On the 4/66 it rocked.


RayO


both your pc's had a math coprocessor in them, that's why they ran better.
the sx models were severely hampered with out one


386s did not come with a math coprocessor, it was a very expensive add
on, if your motherboard supported it at all.

Tony DiMarzio wrote:
you would have been really really! jealous of my DX4/100 then

--
Tony DiMarzio


"Andrew MacPherson" wrote in
message
ddress_disguised...
In article ,
(RayO) wrote:

On the 4/66 it rocked.

It's rather sad, but even after all these years the phrase "DX2/66"
still causes a little twinge of excitement in some deep, dark
pleasure centre in my brain. It was such an object of unaffordable
techno-lust that the effects have obviously scarred me for life :-)

Andrew McP

I remember those days very well I finally did get a 486 DX4/100,
and only a couple months later the Pentium motherboards seemed to pop up
everywhere at low cost, so I skipped the '2 digit midgets' and got a
P-233 and 2ea 64 meg dimms! Been upgrading furiously ever since! :-p
McG.

Quoth The Raven "Michael W. Ryder" in

Highlandish wrote:

Quoth The Raven "RayO" in


"Highlandish" wrote in message
...


I had a 486sx2/50 (no math coprocessor) and doom1 S/W ran like a
dog with 2 legs, it was literally a slide show. I didn't upgrade
until the P90 was a year old. who could afford it back then?

You probably had a bad chipset, it made a big difference back
then, even 486sx should've done better than that poor dog.
I ran it on 33/386DX and 486/66DX2. On the 386 it
chopped, not a complete slide show, but not
pleasant either. On the 4/66 it rocked.


RayO


both your pc's had a math coprocessor in them, that's why they ran
better. the sx models were severely hampered with out one


386s did not come with a math coprocessor, it was a very expensive add
on, if your motherboard supported it at all.

uhuh, I knew that, I guess you didn't catch the point that his was a 386DX,
the sx models meant no math co-processor, while the dx models did.

--
Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol.

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me

"Highlandish" wrote in message
...
Quoth The Raven "Michael W. Ryder" in




both your pc's had a math coprocessor in them, that's why they ran
better. the sx models were severely hampered with out one


386s did not come with a math coprocessor, it was a very expensive add
on, if your motherboard supported it at all.

uhuh, I knew that, I guess you didn't catch the point that his was a 386DX,
the sx models meant no math co-processor, while the dx models did.

No they didn't, the math co-processor was extra even in the i386DX. You're
confusing 386 with 486. I had added a math co-processor though in my 386,
very few people did.


RayO

Highlandish wrote:


You probably had a bad chipset, it made a big difference back
then, even 486sx should've done better than that poor dog.
I ran it on 33/386DX and 486/66DX2. On the 386 it
chopped, not a complete slide show, but not
pleasant either. On the 4/66 it rocked.

RayO

both your pc's had a math coprocessor in them, that's why they ran better.
the sx models were severely hampered with out one


If I am remembering this correctly:
386SX was a cut down version of the 386 with some of the data pathways
cut in half. 386DX was the full 32bit 386 chip. The 387 co processor was
an add on for the 386DX/SX.

On the 486, DX meant 'with co processor' and and 486SX had no co
processor. You could buy a 487 co processor to compliment the 486sx.

Actually, DooM (or Duke) took no advantage of a maths co processor.
Quake was the first ID game to do this.

I seem to remember that having PCI graphics rather than ISA made the
difference between jerky and ultrasmooth on the 486/66. Probably, VLB
would have been similar to PCI in performance.
--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
np:
http://www.unmusic.co.uk
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/Top_50_Films.html - favorite films
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amh-s.html - alt.music.home-studio

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:53:13 GMT, "RayO"
scribbled:


"Highlandish" wrote in message
...
Quoth The Raven "Michael W. Ryder" in




both your pc's had a math coprocessor in them, that's why they ran
better. the sx models were severely hampered with out one


386s did not come with a math coprocessor, it was a very expensive add
on, if your motherboard supported it at all.

uhuh, I knew that, I guess you didn't catch the point that his was a 386DX,
the sx models meant no math co-processor, while the dx models did.

No they didn't, the math co-processor was extra even in the i386DX. You're
confusing 386 with 486. I had added a math co-processor though in my 386,
very few people did.


RayO

Yep. The DX designation just meant 32 bit vs 16 bit addressing and
such, no bearing on still having to plug in a 387 coprocessor chip.

-Slash
--
"Ebert Victorious"
-The Onion

"killermike" wrote in message
...
Highlandish wrote:


You probably had a bad chipset, it made a big difference back
then, even 486sx should've done better than that poor dog.
I ran it on 33/386DX and 486/66DX2. On the 386 it
chopped, not a complete slide show, but not
pleasant either. On the 4/66 it rocked.

RayO

both your pc's had a math coprocessor in them, that's why they ran better.
the sx models were severely hampered with out one


If I am remembering this correctly:
386SX was a cut down version of the 386 with some of the data pathways
cut in half. 386DX was the full 32bit 386 chip. The 387 co processor was
an add on for the 386DX/SX.

On the 486, DX meant 'with co processor' and and 486SX had no co
processor. You could buy a 487 co processor to compliment the 486sx.

Actually, DooM (or Duke) took no advantage of a maths co processor.
Quake was the first ID game to do this.

I seem to remember that having PCI graphics rather than ISA made the
difference between jerky and ultrasmooth on the 486/66. Probably, VLB
would have been similar to PCI in performance.


There is one thing about the 387 math-chip that not many people
knew. It didn't just speed up floating-point math, but also
integer division and multiplication, as well as long integer math of any sort.
So just about any software that did a lot of math, including integral math,
benefited from it.

RayO

It looks like the Athlon 64 3000+ is the sweet spot. Inexpensive and
better in Doom 3 than a P4 3.2 EE that costs five times as much.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7

rms wrote:

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy

Looks like the 6800GT is the sweet spot, if you can get it cheap (my pny
version was $345 shipped from provantage).

rms