If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DOOM3 on P4P800E deluxe 9800Pro ??? | Art Simpson | Asus Motherboards | 5 | August 11th 04 10:31 PM |
Up-To-Date CPU Benchmarks | Fao, Sean | General | 1 | March 22nd 04 11:43 PM |
Tualatin on P2B Benchmarks? | P2B | Asus Motherboards | 7 | January 19th 04 02:45 AM |
Tualatin on P2B Benchmarks? | P2B | Overclocking | 8 | December 29th 03 06:52 AM |
confusion about doom3 vs HL2 benchmarks | Sumedh | Ati Videocards | 15 | September 16th 03 03:44 AM |