🚀 go-pugleaf

William Harris <willh@strategicthought.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi,
>	Just wanted to try and start up a discussion here... Ill tell you
>what happened:  I have a p133, with a stingray 64/video, and its runs pretty
>fast.  I get a doom fps of 83.3... However, I wanted more, so i overclocked
>to 150.  My doom fps went DOWN to 70 of something like that.  This was not
>unexpected, as DooM relys on the graphics card a lot at speeds > 100mhz,
>and the p150, like the p75, has only a 50mhz bus.  So... I overcloked to
>180, and the doom fps went up to 89.7fps.  I know that the p180 only has a
>bus speed of 60mhz, but these two results really indicate that the bus
>speed is VERY important for playing games nowadays.
>	Can anyone comment on my p133 vs 150 result?  Are the p150s CRAP?
>or was it just that my 133mhz chip was not meant to run at 150, and it
>went slower than it should?  Why are intel charging so much for the p150,
>if games are really going to run slower?  Are games players best waiting
>until the p200 comes out, which has a bus speed of 66mhz?  Should I try
>overclocking to 200? (hehe)

>	Comments appricated...

>		-Will

>btw. im running at 133 now...


I'm sure Intel's primary target market are video gamers.

Oh, and I believe the P150 runs 60/30, not 50/25 like the P75.  I
could be wrong, but it makes sense.  P60/90/120/150/180 = all
increments of 30.  If the 90 is 60/30, why wouldn't the P150?  Intel
would be dumb to market a P150 with a 50/25 Mhz bus.  The P133 would
kick its butt consistently in nearly all areas.  Even at 60/30 the
P150 can't be much faster at all than the P133, assuming they are the
same class chip.  Its processor(P150) speed is only 12.8% faster, yet
the bus (assuming 60/30) is 9.1% slower.  Or, the P133 is 11.3% slower
CPU and bus is 10% faster.  Depends which way you look at it.  Either
way, the P150 isn't much faster.

John M