Should I go Athlon64 or Barton?

"gaffo" wrote in message
m...
Wes Newell wrote:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:03:11 +0000, gaffo wrote:


Feel free to *plonk* me it my sign offends.


Doesn't offend me.



thats good.



It just shows your stupidity and lack of consideration
for others.




My civic duty to my Nation as a citizen is more important then my
civility - Liberty is on the line.

How about the rest of the world? Do you actually think everybody else on
the whole planet actually cares about your particular political belief?

Why don't you target Bush's electorate with your views instead of the rest
of the world (those of us that have NG/internet access, anyway)?

Dave

FOAD you right-wing POS. In fact, why don't you stick your 9mm and
your bible right up your ass and do us ALL a favor, asshole.

Donkey hater!

Snip 8

I can't imagine AGP entirely disappearing within a year or two. There
will still be a big market for AGP upgrade cards in the near future. Heck,
you can still buy a GeForce 5200 or Radeon 9200 in PCI.

Yes, very handy for adding extra monitors to the computer. Too bad very few
games make use of extra monitors.

Daniel James writes:

It's an interesting question ... though not as interesting as it was in
1983. I used to have a rule-of-thumb for estimating the "bittedness" of
CPUs that went something like this:

The 8088 had an 8-bit external data bus, 16-bit general-purpose registers,
16-bit stack pointer, and 20-bit addressing range (being a bit generous,
considering the segmented addressing model). Taking an average of those
four gives 15 bits. Near enough.

The 8086 was the same apart from the 16-bit data bus (and, yes, the longer
instruction prefetch queue - I'd forgotten about that) so let's call it 17
bits.

Compare that with the Z80 (8+16[1]+16+16=14 bits) the 6502 beloved of
Apple II and PET user (8+8+8+16=10 bits) and the 68000 (32+32+32+24=30
bits). Considering that these chips were all available when the PC was
designed: I know which chip *I'd* have used!

It is well publized that IBM chose a lower-end CPU for the PC in order
not to compete with other business divisions.


--Kai

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips keith wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:16:14 -0500, willbill wrote:
(Intel, now down to 700 and still losing) soon will be
...haviong lost at *least* 100lbs on Itanic.

And another 100# on the P7 catch-up core.
And some too on the P7 Celeron, crippled _worse_
that the original L2-less Celeron 266.

Hell, a P5 is good enough for 90% of the desktops.

Yep! I use one at my GFs. MS-win95 and 8 MB hurt worse
than 200 MHz. Maybe now that her son has a nice new machine
(XP 2200) I can load a text-mode Linux. Then that machine
will be in the realm of "indistinguishably fast".

-- Robert

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:33:58 +0000, Scott Alfter wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article , jack wrote:
George Macdonald wrote:
: On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:58:07 +0200, "jack" wrote:
:: Also, at least in this NG (.chips) your political statements are
:: falling more or less on deaf ears as this group is populated with a
:: large number of SWM (stupid white men) and even a few VSWM (V = very).
:: Get my drift?
:
: One of those days, Jack (gaffo I dunno), you're going to waken up to
: discover that all your liberal politicians are really just right-wingers
: pretending to err, take care of you... as they umm, liberally dip their
: hand in your pocket.:-) C.F. New Jersey McGreevey - another corrupt
: little "liberal" **** gets caught err, dipping.guffaw

FOAD you right-wing POS. In fact, why don't you stick your 9mm and
your bible right up your ass and do us ALL a favor, asshole.

Wow...for being one of the "tolerant" peace/love/understanding types, you
appear to have significant issues with someone who dares to have a different
take on matters. Long-term observation has shown that the modern left is
chock-full of hypocrites who say one thing and then do another...witness
their bleats for tolerance while they're intolerant of dissenting thought as
an example, or the Democrats' indignation at imagined slights against their
patriotism while calling Republicans unpatriotic and un-American.
Clear-thinking people find this hypocrisy disgusting.

....just another example of what leftists consider free speech/thought. If
you don't agree with them, your rights don't exist.

--
Keith
express yourself.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:58:21 +0100, Daniel James wrote:

In article , Keith wrote:
[WillBill wrote]
how many "bits" was the IBM 8088 pc in 1983?

Sixteen

frankly i've forgotten, but my guess is 8 (or at most 16)

It was by any definition a 16 bit processor, though had an 8bit bus. It
was identical to the 8086, other than the bus (8bs. 16b) and prefetch
queue (4B vs. 6B).

It's an interesting question ... though not as interesting as it was in
1983. I used to have a rule-of-thumb for estimating the "bittedness" of
CPUs that went something like this:

The 8088 had an 8-bit external data bus, 16-bit general-purpose registers,
16-bit stack pointer, and 20-bit addressing range (being a bit generous,
considering the segmented addressing model). Taking an average of those
four gives 15 bits. Near enough.

Why didn't you average in the year of introduction? The best measure of
"bitness" I've come across is the width of the FX register file. ...or
perhaps the index register width (usueally the same thing).

What do you call a PDP8? Some of them had a serial (1b) ALU. The NatSemi
PACE had an 8-bit ALU, but 16b registers and addressing.

BTW, the segmented model wasn't all that difficult to use. Well large
data structures were a PITA, but large code was simple enough.

snip

--
Keith

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:12:39 +0200, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:

Daniel James writes:

It's an interesting question ... though not as interesting as it was in
1983. I used to have a rule-of-thumb for estimating the "bittedness" of
CPUs that went something like this:

The 8088 had an 8-bit external data bus, 16-bit general-purpose registers,
16-bit stack pointer, and 20-bit addressing range (being a bit generous,
considering the segmented addressing model). Taking an average of those
four gives 15 bits. Near enough.

The 8086 was the same apart from the 16-bit data bus (and, yes, the longer
instruction prefetch queue - I'd forgotten about that) so let's call it 17
bits.

Compare that with the Z80 (8+16[1]+16+16=14 bits) the 6502 beloved of
Apple II and PET user (8+8+8+16=10 bits) and the 68000 (32+32+32+24=30
bits). Considering that these chips were all available when the PC was
designed: I know which chip *I'd* have used!

It is well publized that IBM chose a lower-end CPU for the PC in order
not to compete with other business divisions.

Not really. The reason the 8088 was chosen was for cost. A 16b bus would
have doubled the cost of the bus and the minimum memory configuration.
Remember, memory was *expensive*. ...as was SSI/MSI TTL and packaging.

--
Keith

keith wrote:
: On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:33:58 +0000, Scott Alfter wrote:
snip

: ...just another example of what leftists consider free
: speech/thought. If you don't agree with them, your rights don't
: exist.

And so Vswm No. 2 steps up to spew his usual rhetoric. You're even
a bigger right-wing asshole than Vswm No. 1.....plonk!

J.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:15:27 -0500, willbill wrote:

keith wrote:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:16:14 -0500, willbill wrote:

gaffo wrote:

.... 64-bit will remain irrelvant for another 5 yrs. (or more).

AMD is there already, and now even the 800 pound gorilla
(Intel, now down to 700 and still losing) soon will be


....haviong lost at *least* 100lbs on Itanic.


agreed and smiling.


snip

otoh, 32 bits *is* likely to still be usable 5+ yrs from now on 90+% of
all pc's. maybe even 100%


Hell, a P5 is good enough for 90% of the desktops. Are people going to
upgrade these antiques to a P4? I know I skipped from the K6 family

me too


to the K8 because I didn't want to upgrade again soon.

again, me too

i find it interesting that PC stuff is finally slowing down,
at least a bit

one couldn't go 5 years in the 80's/90's without having
to get a new pc. that's no longer true

In the 80's and 90's processor and system features were just as important
as speed. All this has slowed and there is sufficient speed, with no new
killer apps".

p.s.

how many "bits" was the IBM 8088 pc in 1983?


Sixteen


wasn't the 8088 8 bits?

No, it was 16bits, but had an 8b external bus.

whereas the 8086 was 16 bits?

No, they had an identical architecture.

frankly i've forgotten, but my guess is 8 (or at most 16)


It was by any definition a 16 bit processor, though had an 8bit bus.

therein is **the** issue

are we talking about the bus or what?

There is a *lot* more to a processor than the size of its bus. Was the P5
a 64 bit processor? It has a 64bit external bus.

was identical to the 8086, other
than the bus (8bs. 16b) and prefetch
queue (4B vs. 6B). The 80186 and 80188 started out as identical dies,
with a bond-out option.

thank you for your response

this "bit" stuff gets confusing to me.

You're not alone. ;-) Everyone has a different opinion, and there are
counter-examples that will confuse any fixed definition.

are we talking about the bus or what?

Generally the "bitness" of a processor is it's linear (indexed) address
range or the width of its FX register file (which are usually the same
thing).

anyhow and btw, aside from the crappy ide/floppy connector layout on the
s2875s, it's a typical/excellent Tyan mobo (at least in my experience).
i was surprised that you spent the extra bucks for a 144 (i got a 142)

I think it was only $30 or so more than a 142. I can't remember. I had a
fixed budget from SWMBO and squoze the system into that. I borrowed a disk
drive out of my K6-III system to slip under the wire. ;-) Unfortunately,
I have to use it for a while, since the SATA drivers for Linux don't work. :-(

it'll be interesting so see what we can go to when the 9 micron Opterons
show up in the near future

You mean .09um (90nm)?

not to mention if Tyan will offer a bios update that will permit using
one of the new dual core Opteron cpu's on the s2875s

Tyan has been pretty good in the past. ...the reason I went back with Tyan.

BTW, does your case fan tach work? Mine reads 0RPM. I've even swapped
fans a few times. Nada.

--
Keith