🚀 go-pugleaf

I've got a K6-200 and, yes, it is a great deal. It will toast the P200MMX
in a lot of categories, but one of em ISN'T quake.  While the FPU for the
AMD K6 is much better implemented than Intel's, it has to load serially,
not parallel like Intel.  Quake loads a lot of data into the FPU (some kind
of cache I think) and therefore runs better with Intel chips.  Don't get me
wrong, the AMD chip runs Quake just fine (much better than my P133), but
the P200MMX would run it faster.

Just my ramblings.

yaya <ya@aha.com> wrote in article <3475464b.6438638@news-server>...
> On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:56:03 GMT, mporadzi@xgpu.srv.ualberta.ca
> (Mieszko) wrote:
> 
> >This thread is getting nowhere. If I was going to buy a computer
> >merely for it's FPU, I'd go with the AMD. I have a P200 MMX and I've
> >seen it work. I've also seen my pentium get toasted by AMD k6 166.
> >
> 
> Yeah, i've seen some test scores where the p200 gets some pretty good
> competition from the k166.  I was real impressed with the PII's
> numbers though for Quake. (see tom's hardware page, cpu's) 
> The socket 7 pack was in the low teens and the PII233 was up around 25
> frames per second with no accelerator card. 
> Did they IMPROVE the FPU in the Pentium II's ? 
> I'm looking to upgrade and I think I'm going to jump from a 486 to a
> PII.  The extra cost of the processor is less than the cost of a
> "throw away" socket 7 board, cpu, and video card in the long run. 
> 
> >The point is, if you're going to play games, get yourself Ninetendo or
> >Sony. AMD is definitely the choice for the money right now. 
> 
> even an amd 166 runs quake just fine. 
> 
> 
>