🚀 go-pugleaf

I have the following systems:

MSI 694D Pro-A Dual PIII 900
256 MB RAM
Creative Annihilator Pro
W2K

K7V w/ Athlon 1 Gig
256 MB RAM
Creative Annihilator 2 Ultra
W2K

KA7 w/ Athlon Socket A 800
256 MB RAM
ATI All-In-One Radeon
W98

With the Anni Pro in the 98 box.  I was getting 3DMark2000 scors around 5k.
With the ATI, it drops down in the low 4s.  No surprises there.  However,
when I move to the configs above, the W98 box smokes the other two ( even w/
a lowly 4k score)  The dual PIII unit gets 2k and the Athlon gets 2k.

Why is this.  I downloaded what MadOnion has listed as their W2K compatible
version.

Do I need to go back to W98 and forget a dual processor system.

Thanks,
wbpo

"Kenny Boles" <kmboles@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:E0gR5.2004$xd3.160422@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> First of all 1.2 GHz is faster than 1 GHz. Unless you made a typographical
> error. Second, I think that even then it's a pretty small increase, let's
be
> realistic, all we are seeing from Intel is "the same old Ford" but faster,
> until the Pentium 4 released officially and is accepted. (Shouldn't they
> just come up with a new name?)
> And second of all, yes, the Duron is *a lot* better than the Celeron.
> However, I personally don't like having the "value" chips. I'd rather pay
a
> bit more for more performance.
> The bottom line, AMD and Intel make very good chips. The only PC CPU I
> wouldn't even pretend to consider is a Cyrix. (This'll start a flame war).
>
>
> "Mike Kay" <mpk@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.4.21.0011171112120.28913-100000@fes11.sanger.ac.uk...
> >
> > what u said was was true in the past, nbut (from all accounts) not any
> > more.
> > The duron beats the celeron hands down in every test, & the Tbird1.2GHZ
> > beats the PIII 1GHZ also.
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Kenny Boles wrote:
> >
> > > I think anyone would be happy with either chip. AMD is cheaper, and
> Intel
> > > is, bluntly, better, a proven fact. But that doesn't really matter,
they
> > > both get the job done, and the difference is *usually* negligible.
> > > The computer hardware zealotry needs to stop. Do you people realize,
> that
> > > you "pledge your allegiance" to a slab of silicon? This shows than
> humanity
> > > is still tribal and easily lead. You people divide yourselves between
> AMD
> > > vs. Intel, ATI vs. Nvidia, and even PC vs. Mac, perhaps, you should
just
> > > realize that you would *probably* be pleased either way.
> > > So I do not sound biased towards Intel, I'm running on an AMD K7
> Thunderbird
> > > (800 MHz).
> > >
> > > "Larry Yuan" <LYuan@Home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:xuZP5.4917$pD5.91420@quark.idirect.com...
> > > > Okay, hold up a sec.  Although I do agree that an Athlon system can
be
> > > more
> > > > stable than a dual Intel setup,  you have to realize that the
> operations
> > > of
> > > > a computer are not 100% based on the CPU itself.  You don't need to
be
> a
> > > > rocket scientist, or have god-like experiences to realize that so
many
> > > other
> > > > components come into play.  For example, if I go from my Dual P800
to
> a
> > > > T-Bird 1GHz buy only switching the processor and the motherboard,
> there
> > > > might be a chance that the new system sucks...why?  Maybe because
the
> > > > motherboard doesn't like the brand of PC-133 Memory I have in there.
> > > Maybe,
> > > > because of the fact that the Athlon proc. uses more voltage than the
> > > Intel,
> > > > my PSU (power supply) couldn't take the change, or can't distribute
> enough
> > > > power because of my 4 U2W SCSI HDDs.  As you can see, there's a
> million
> > > > permutations and combinations that can cause any system to be
> unstable.
> > > And
> > > > that's not even taking into account the operating system.
> > > >
> > > > Now everyone knows, they even though people tend to use Win9x/NT
based
> > > OS's,
> > > > they are not exactly the most efficient in terms of robustness and
> > > > stability.  If you guys REALLY want stability, go pay $20,000 for a
> > > > UltraSparc or something....but wait...you can't play games!
> Uh-oh...so
> > > > we're back to Windows again.  At work, I run Win2k Advanced server
> with 8
> > > > procs, and 4GB of ECC memory.  It runs stable.  Up time, currently,
is
> the
> > > > time between when we upgraded to SP1 until now, and it's still rock
> solid.
> > > > I'm sure an Athlon can do that, but the fact is, it's not going to
get
> the
> > > > job done in that type of environment.  CHOOSE YOUR HARDWARE BASED ON
> WHAT
> > > > YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT, NOT BASED ON HOW MANY SOCKETS YOU CAN FILL.
> > > >
> > > > You wanna talk games?  Okay...Let's talk games.  Okay, so Linux is
> more or
> > > > less out of the picture.  I play some Quake3, NHL 2001, Rogue Spear,
> > > > Half-Life, Baldur's Gate.  All the games work in Win2k Professional
> SP1 on
> > > > my Dual 800MHz.  They work on my Athlon too.  They work on my
PIII450
> w/
> > > > WinME installed as well.  I get better frame rates with my PIII450
w/
> GTS2
> > > > and WinMe.  If I had to choose an OS, I would still pick Win2k Pro
> because
> > > > it's more stable.  I can still play the games, and honestly, it's
not
> that
> > > > much of a difference.  If you NEED more frames per second, go use
> Win9x,
> > > but
> > > > don't rave like a lunatic if your machine locks up once in awhile.
> > > Today's
> > > > games are VERY system resource intensive, and they do push most
> household
> > > > systems to their limits.
> > > >
> > > > Everyone has different values when it comes to computing.  Some
value
> > > > graphics while others, they thing stability is more important.
Still
> > > others
> > > > want speed.  Do your research, ask the questions, and stop arguing
> about
> > > > what processor is more stable, because nobody really knows which one
> is
> > > more
> > > > stable. :)
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Larry
> > > >
> > > > "RMS" <rsavoie1@Kiss.my.grits.spammer.home.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:73ZP5.38175$4U6.1894931@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...
> > > > > Well if it ain't the village _ _ _ _ _
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me appologize for that right now, I just couldn't resist :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, to be slightly more serious (Not really, just my opinions).
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I'm just a regular smoe with a regular job. I don't have a
super
> > > grab
> > > > > bag of experience, I just know when smoke is being blown up my
arse.
> I
> > > > will
> > > > > tell you right now, that any Athlon chip is more stable than a
dual
> > > Intel
> > > > > machine. The reason you hear of a few people with Athlon problems
is
> > > > because
> > > > > we build, customize, and repair our own systems. The majority of
the
> > > > Wintel
> > > > > group get their machines from Uncle Dell. He tell's you exactely
> what
> > > > parts
> > > > > to put in so their won't be trouble.
> > > > >
> > > > > Windows is based on the X86 architecture. AMD and Intel both use
the
> X86
> > > > > architecture. I'd explain the history for you, but that would take
> too
> > > > long.
> > > > > It looks like you are trying to say RISC instructions are a bad
> idea????
> > > > If
> > > > > this is true I won't dignify that with a comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > See below for the responses to your tirade.
> > > > >
> > > > > "COMPUTER VILLAGE" <INFO@COMPUTER-VILLAGE.COM> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3A101FC5.18C8BA54@COMPUTER-VILLAGE.COM...
> > > > > > Hey Rick...I dont doubt that your expertise is somewhere out
> there,
> > > but
> > > > R
> > > > > u
> > > > > > gonna tell us that the POC that the Athlon chip offers is more
> stable
> > > > than
> > > > > a
> > > > > > solid Dual 600EB u gotta be smokin some good ass shi* ...anyways
> next
> > > > time
> > > > >
> > > > > YES
> > > > >
> > > > > > limit your responses to your Athlon partners...by the way I
could
> take
> > > > any
> > > > > Dual
> > > > >
> > > > > Just replying too the existing header.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Athlon if it exists and smoke it with any PIII chip even lower
in
> > > > > > MHz...(remember that Windows is based on the Pentium
architecture
> not
> > > > the
> > > > > AMD
> > > > >
> > > > > Hahahahahahahahahahahaha..... Ha!
> > > > >
> > > > > > -and the RISC instructions, one that by the way was not even in
> > > anyone's
> > > > > head
> > > > > > at the time that P and W were making money out of us...   ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to know what RISC is, visit Alpha processors, and see
> what
> > > > speed
> > > > > is.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take that AMD kiddo
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ouch!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RMS wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your opinion. Since I think you are totally wrong
> about
> > > > > virtually
> > > > > > > everything, I'll let everybody know how it really works
> (IMNSHO).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have 3 systems, Athlon 800Mhz, PIII 550Mhz, and a K6-2
400Mhz
> > > > (Enough
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > that.). I have been actually working in computer
> maintenance/network
> > > > > admin
> > > > > > > at a site that has 1200 clients for several years now (No
MSCE,
> > > ABCD,
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > anything else like that.).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Facts:
> > > > > > > 1) Dual processor systems are for systems that run multiple
> > > > applications
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > the same time, anything else is a waste of CPU processing
power.
> > > (The
> > > > > > > exception of course is high end servers with OS's that have
real
> > > > > symetrical
> > > > > > > processing, at the kernel level, like Solaris or IBM AIX.
> > > > > > > 2) Win NT is a joke of an OS compared to any Unix OS (Just ask
a
> > > real
> > > > > > > administrator.) unless your main goal is to have everything
> > > automated
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > "who cares about performance".
> > > > > > > 3) Win NT is a joke of an OS compared to Win 98 for playing
> games
> > > > (This
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > be changing with Directx 8.0).
> > > > > > > 4) Hayes modem - Not,
> > > > > > >  Netgear NIC - Not,
> > > > > > >  Intel PIII CPU - Not,
> > > > > > >  Creative DVD - Not !
> > > > > > > 5) USR modem - Yes,
> > > > > > >  3Com NIC - Yes,
> > > > > > >  AMD Athlon CPU, - Yes
> > > > > > >  Pioneer DVD - Yes !
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe if you had purchased the right hardware instead of
taking
> what
> > > > > came in
> > > > > > > the pre-assembled "box", you would have been able to run
Win98.
> > > Maybe
> > > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > hadn't wasted your cash on the 2 Intel PIII 550's, you could
> have
> > > had
> > > > a
> > > > > > > totally stable Athlon 900Mhz for the same price. I understand
> that
> > > you
> > > > > > > wasted your bucks on that SMP because you wanted to be the
> coolest
> > > guy
> > > > > > > around, and now you have to use NT so it won't appear that
your
> > > > wasting
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > SMP money, but just live with it. Just out of curiostity, how
> long
> > > did
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > have the dual PIII system before you were told by a friend
that
> > > Win98
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > not do SMP?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Last note: If the best you can achieve is "crash less", you
> > > slouldn't
> > > > be
> > > > > > > throwing your opinions around.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So long to another Wintel clone, Rick
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mark Borton" <MarkBorton@DEEPSPACENINE.COM> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:974120262.409.0.nnrp-02.c1ed3851@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > > > > > > I have 4 systems
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > a Dual PIII500 thats NEEDS win2000 to utilize its SMP
> > > > > capabilities...and
> > > > > > > > this machine outshines my mates PIII800 at all but the
really
> high
> > > > end
> > > > > 3d
> > > > > > > > benchmarks where it equals them (Both off us have Geforce 2
> > > ultras,
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > using Detonator 3 drivers, mine win2k his win98SE)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A PII350, and 2 P200MMX machines
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All the systems run faster, boot faster, crash less and are
> > > > generally
> > > > > > > nicer
> > > > > > > > to work with now than undier 95/98....I have had no
problems,
> no
> > > > blue
> > > > > > > > screens , and havent turned 1 system off since they were
> installed
> > > > (my
> > > > > > > > running time is now approching 3 months i think...possibly
> > > > > longer...can`t
> > > > > > > > remember when i bought 2k)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As a long time user of winxx right back to V3, and as both
an
> NT4
> > > > and
> > > > > > > win2k
> > > > > > > > MCSE i can say that Win2k is the platform of choice for
games
> and
> > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > work....i wish "High" street computer sellers would relise
the
> > > > > potentiol
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > SMP systems, you can get a cheaper system of comparable
> performnce
> > > > now
> > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > SMP than you can buy a Ghz system that does the same thing..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Win2k , if your not buying shoddy clone OEM hardware is the
> best
> > > OS
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > gaming...Get yourself an Nvida Graphics card, Creative labs
> sound
> > > > card
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > DVD decoder, a Hayes V90 "HARDWARE" modem, a couple of TRUE
> INTEL
> > > > > > > Processors
> > > > > > > > , a Gigabyte Dual Processor Board and a Netgear network
> adapter if
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > networking (the TX310 is good) and youll never look back
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>