🚀 go-pugleaf

I don't have a P-II to compare with, but my real world test is an older program,
Corel-Draw version 3, likely all integer math as I've heard Corel insisted
because it was a 386 time period and float co-processors were rare. My daughter
created a 13Meg file with many textures, etc. The AMD K5 at 100mhz loaded,
converted and rendered the image to screen 1 minute faster than a pentium 133,
even though Ziff-Dufus Winbench says the K5 is slower on all counts.  The AMD
K6-166(running hot at 200mhz) took 4 minutes off the time, compared with a
pentium classic 200mhz.  I don't play Quake, so I use AMD chips. Each chip seems
to be tuned for high performance in particular instructions and software vendors
are coding for the INTEL architecture, for MMX and float-intensive work.  AMD is
trying to turn that around with their partnerships with game vendors and with
their 3D instruction set. CPU performance isn't an absolute value, it's highly
dependent on the software. For me, AMD is a great value, for average graphic
programs, charts, 2D(VRML too!), web surfing, word processing, Java Junk, I like
AMD.

Phil Randal wrote:

> In article <664teh$1k$2@usenet76.supernews.com>
>    "Mardagg" <mardagg@kalamazoo.net> writes:
> >Most tech articles say it doesn't matter until you go above 64MB of main
> >memory.. But I still don't see how it can't help under that.. And it's good
> >when you do go over the 64MB...
>
> Except that only Intel's HX chipset (and Via's VP-2 etc) support secondary
> caching above 64MB.  That's one of the reasons why the HX motherboard is
> still the best choice for fileservers.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Phil Randal                                philr@hwcces.demon.co.uk
> Environmental Services Department
> Hereford and Worcester County Council
> Worcester, UK