Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
In article <pan.2005.03.19.17.38.55.995703@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:09:45 -0500, dale wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2005.03.18.03.07.58.182413@att.bizzzz>,
>> keith <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:
>>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:31:40 -0500, dale wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <dho9311698o9cb5ig3gulm1s3apmadn1v2@4ax.com>,
>>>> Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> writes:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:53:56 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>> You recall wrong. The K5 was weak, compared to the Pentiums of the
>>>>>>> time, and the K6 BARELY edged-out (by about 4%) the Pentium in integer
>>>>>>> performance, despite the benefit of having twice the L1 cache. Plus,
>>>>>>> the Pentium kicked the K6 around the block where it really mattered,
>>>>>>> floating-point performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The K6 was hardly kicked around the block in floating point performance,
>>>>>>that was the Cyrix 6x86. The K6 was maybe 70-90% the performance of P5
>>>>>>and P6 at floating point clock-for-clock;
>>>>>
>>>>> Compared to the P5, the K6 was pretty close, but it tended to get
>>>>> kicked around pretty badly when compared to the P6. Now, I suppose
>>>>> one could argue that the 20-50% improvement in floating point
>>>>> performance for the P6 vs. P5 was as much to do with the memory
>>>>> subsystem as anything else, the end result was the same.
>>>>>
>>>> It's worth noting that floating point performance was a niche market
>>>> until Quake hit the market. Suddenly FP was for the masses. Plus the
>>>> "free" FXCH Quake's inner render loop favored the Intel chips. Of
>>>> course shortly after, everthing then went OpenGL, and perhaps (but only
>>>> perhaps) became a little less FP sensitive.
>>>
>>> It's also worth noting that Cyrix started out in the 8087 FP business, but
>>> no one cared about FP at the time.
>>>
>> And then Cyrix went on to make the M1, notoriously weak in the FP
>> department.
>
> E=Precisely because "no one" cared about x87 performance. ...(as you
> pointed out), until Quake.
>
>> (I still have an M1 running, though I've offloaded all
>> the work, and will pull the plug when I get a round tuit and decide
>> I don't mind if the 3.2G Deskstar gets a case of stiction.)
>
> I think I gave my last one away (though perhaps have an M2 somewhere). I
> should have kept it for the "archive". If I can find one laying around,
> perhaps I should put it in the 1590 I have sitting on the shelf. I think I
> have a couple of SP-97s laying around here somewhere too.
>
If I can find it, I've got a spare M1 laying around somewhere. What's
an SP-97?
Dale
In article <pan.2005.03.19.17.38.55.995703@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:09:45 -0500, dale wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2005.03.18.03.07.58.182413@att.bizzzz>,
>> keith <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:
>>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:31:40 -0500, dale wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <dho9311698o9cb5ig3gulm1s3apmadn1v2@4ax.com>,
>>>> Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> writes:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:53:56 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>> You recall wrong. The K5 was weak, compared to the Pentiums of the
>>>>>>> time, and the K6 BARELY edged-out (by about 4%) the Pentium in integer
>>>>>>> performance, despite the benefit of having twice the L1 cache. Plus,
>>>>>>> the Pentium kicked the K6 around the block where it really mattered,
>>>>>>> floating-point performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The K6 was hardly kicked around the block in floating point performance,
>>>>>>that was the Cyrix 6x86. The K6 was maybe 70-90% the performance of P5
>>>>>>and P6 at floating point clock-for-clock;
>>>>>
>>>>> Compared to the P5, the K6 was pretty close, but it tended to get
>>>>> kicked around pretty badly when compared to the P6. Now, I suppose
>>>>> one could argue that the 20-50% improvement in floating point
>>>>> performance for the P6 vs. P5 was as much to do with the memory
>>>>> subsystem as anything else, the end result was the same.
>>>>>
>>>> It's worth noting that floating point performance was a niche market
>>>> until Quake hit the market. Suddenly FP was for the masses. Plus the
>>>> "free" FXCH Quake's inner render loop favored the Intel chips. Of
>>>> course shortly after, everthing then went OpenGL, and perhaps (but only
>>>> perhaps) became a little less FP sensitive.
>>>
>>> It's also worth noting that Cyrix started out in the 8087 FP business, but
>>> no one cared about FP at the time.
>>>
>> And then Cyrix went on to make the M1, notoriously weak in the FP
>> department.
>
> E=Precisely because "no one" cared about x87 performance. ...(as you
> pointed out), until Quake.
>
>> (I still have an M1 running, though I've offloaded all
>> the work, and will pull the plug when I get a round tuit and decide
>> I don't mind if the 3.2G Deskstar gets a case of stiction.)
>
> I think I gave my last one away (though perhaps have an M2 somewhere). I
> should have kept it for the "archive". If I can find one laying around,
> perhaps I should put it in the 1590 I have sitting on the shelf. I think I
> have a couple of SP-97s laying around here somewhere too.
>
If I can find it, I've got a spare M1 laying around somewhere. What's
an SP-97?
Dale
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram