🚀 go-pugleaf

Stephen Hall wrote:

> James Tonsager wrote:
>
> > Yes, why in the hell does it "need" to play Quake? It does quite fine.
> >
> > Michael Gillman wrote in message <3457c9cc.3486712@news.halcyon.com>...
> > >In <comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips>,
> > >hucker@globalnet.co.uk (Peter Hucker) wrote this ditty :
> > >
> > >>Does the K6 have a floating point unit as good as intel chips?   It
> > >>needs to be able to play quake :-)
>
> Ive heard tell of those who claim they can play Quake just as well on both
> the K5-K6 processors, but I keep asking myself the same question, if all I
> heard before about the arguments on the Pentium having one major advantage
> and playing Quake was it because of it's alleged better FPU then AMD users
> really have something other than price to chuckle about; AMD's fpu is
> either damn close to being as good as Intel's fpu or it in fact IS as good
> as Intel's, in the case it isnt as good as the Intel FPU, AMD can take a
> lot of credit there and every other way they beat the Pentium, I would
> think people are really dumb to buy a specific processor to play one game a
> tad eency weency better than the AMD K6, which beat the Intel Pentium II in
> most or all other benchmarks hands down!
>
> --
> To send me email, please remove the X's from my email addy

If I had a choice between intel's 200mmx vs amd k6200, I would definelty go
with AMD;same goes with 233 vs 233.  This damn thing about the quake timedemo
benchmark and fpu really
makes me sick  Yes, i agree quake is truely an amazing game, and play it quite
often using
my K6200 system but would enjoy it more with the 3dfx experience.  But to base
a cpu on one game
is VERY shallow indeed.