Video card and CPU combination for an excellent gaming exp..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

What CPU do you recommend to go with ATI X800? Should I wait until Intel
releases 64-bit CPU or just go with AMD Athlon 64?

The clock speed of the AMD Athlon 64 CPUs seems to be a lot less than any Intel
Pentium 4 CPUs out there. Does the slower clock speed rate of the AMD Athlon 64
CPU mean slower CPU performance compared to the performance of the Intel
Pentium 4 CPUs?

The new AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 seems to be the latest AMD release at the price of
$750. Do you think the combination of ATI X800 and AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 is a
smart choice for an ultimate gaming experience?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Pccomputerdr wrote:

> What CPU do you recommend to go with ATI X800? Should I wait until Intel
> releases 64-bit CPU or just go with AMD Athlon 64?

Intel released their 64-bit CPU several years ago. It's called Itanium, it
costs several thousand dollars, and it doesn't run 32-bit code worth a
darn. They're supposed to have a new chip coming that's basically a clone
of the AMD-64s, so doesn't seem to be much benefit in waiting other than
the inevitable price reduction as competition develops.

> The clock speed of the AMD Athlon 64 CPUs seems to be a lot less than any
> Intel Pentium 4 CPUs out there. Does the slower clock speed rate of the
> AMD Athlon 64 CPU mean slower CPU performance compared to the performance
> of the Intel Pentium 4 CPUs?

No. The AMD-64 chips do more in a sincle clock cycle than the P4s.

> The new AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 seems to be the latest AMD release at the
> price of $750. Do you think the combination of ATI X800 and AMD Athlon 64
> FX-53 is a smart choice for an ultimate gaming experience?

No. Too much money for too little reward IMO. But if you gotta have the
latest and greatest then that would fill the bill.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Pccomputerdr wrote:

> What CPU do you recommend to go with ATI X800? Should I wait until Intel
> releases 64-bit CPU or just go with AMD Athlon 64?

Go look at the benchmarks on various sites, Athlon64 has a slight edge
in gaming scores usually. Intel wins in the productivity aps usually also.


> Does the slower clock speed rate of the AMD Athlon 64
> CPU mean slower CPU performance compared to the performance of the Intel
> Pentium 4 CPUs?

No.


> The new AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 seems to be the latest AMD release at the price of
> $750. Do you think the combination of ATI X800 and AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 is a
> smart choice for an ultimate gaming experience?

For now, yes, that's the best you can get for gaming. Waiting will
always bring something better; just depends on your time frame on when
you want or need to buy in.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Pccomputerdr wrote:
> What CPU do you recommend to go with ATI X800? Should I wait until Intel
> releases 64-bit CPU or just go with AMD Athlon 64?

Wait 2 years. 😛

No, just wait for a socket 939 Athlon64.

> The clock speed of the AMD Athlon 64 CPUs seems to be a lot less than any
> Intel Pentium 4 CPUs out there. Does the slower clock speed rate of the
> AMD Athlon 64 CPU mean slower CPU performance compared to the performance
> of the Intel Pentium 4 CPUs?

No. Check out some reviews.

The P4 has a very long pipeline that is not particularly efficient - they do
an ok job, but when a branch prediction goes wrong, you lose a lot of time
as you have to empty the pipeline and then repopulate it. If th pipeline is
18 instructions long, you lose 18 instruction for every miss.

The Athlon pipeline is much shorter, and more efficient. So mis-predicting
a branch takes less of a performance hit. Overall you get more instructions
per clock than on an Intel. About 60% more, looking at the numbers. But
that is highly task dependant.

The fact that an Athlon64 CPU clocked at 2.0GHz (3200+) vs an Intel clocked
at 3.2GHz (P4C) can perform similarly:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2038&p=5

Is a sure sign that clock speed means very little.

> The new AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 seems to be the latest AMD release at the
> price of $750. Do you think the combination of ATI X800 and AMD Athlon 64
> FX-53 is a smart choice for an ultimate gaming experience?


Possibly, right now. But only if price is of absolutely no concern. An
Athlon64 3400+ will get you 95-100% of the gaming performance of an FX-53
for about half the price. Thats on a 9800 Pro. I would expect the
difference to be a bit larger for the X800.

Of course... things will all change with socket 939.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Ben Pope wrote:
> Pccomputerdr wrote:
>> The new AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 seems to be the latest AMD release at the
>> price of $750. Do you think the combination of ATI X800 and AMD Athlon 64
>> FX-53 is a smart choice for an ultimate gaming experience?
>
> Possibly, right now. But only if price is of absolutely no concern. An
> Athlon64 3400+ will get you 95-100% of the gaming performance of an FX-53
> for about half the price. Thats on a 9800 Pro. I would expect the
> difference to be a bit larger for the X800.


Oh, the FX-51 is basically the same processor as the Opteron 148. But more
expensive.

I don't know if/when an Opteron clocked the same as an FX-53 will be out.
However, there is going to be an adjustment to cache sizes in order to
differentiate products, this is likely to happen with the introduction of
Socket 939.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> The clock speed of the AMD Athlon 64 CPUs seems to be a lot less than any
Intel
> Pentium 4 CPUs out there. Does the slower clock speed rate of the AMD
Athlon 64
> CPU mean slower CPU performance compared to the performance of the Intel
> Pentium 4 CPUs?

Take an example: Celeron 2,4GHz cpu VS Duron 1,8GHz. Both are budget
versions. People think that 2.4GHz cpu is faster than 1.8, they're dead
wrong! Amd's cpu's are much more effective per clock rate. Meaning their
Duron1,8GHZ cpu is actually working much faster than Celeron 2,4.

On a sidenote, Duron1800 can be considered "2 x Pentium3 900MHz" however,
this is not the case with celeron 2,4. It is more like "2 x Pentium3 700MHz"
in most apps.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

>No, just wait for a socket 939 Athlon64.

If you don't mind me asking, what is so promising about the socket 939
Athlon64?

Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On some of the AMD Athlon 64 CPUs, the cache size is indicated as 1MB. Is that
a simple typo? I can't imagine a CPU having that much cache for normal home
users. As I remember, in the past, Intel released a CPU with 1MB cache, but it
was more expensive than a few thousand dollars…

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Pccomputerdr wrote:
>> No, just wait for a socket 939 Athlon64.
>
> If you don't mind me asking, what is so promising about the socket 939
> Athlon64?

For a start, Dual Channel without Registered DIMMs. With the 754s, you have
single channel. With the 940s, you have Dual Channel, but require
registered DIMMs.

I think the roadmap will be using 939 for the foreseeable future, whereas
754 will be phased out.

This means Dual Channel performance without the ridiculous expense of
registered DIMMs, and hopefully a decent upgrade path (we can dream!)

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

>>If you don't mind me asking, what is so promising about the socket 939
>>Athlon64?
>
>
> For a start, Dual Channel without Registered DIMMs. With the 754s, you have
> single channel. With the 940s, you have Dual Channel, but require
> registered DIMMs.
>
> I think the roadmap will be using 939 for the foreseeable future, whereas
> 754 will be phased out.
>
> This means Dual Channel performance without the ridiculous expense of
> registered DIMMs, and hopefully a decent upgrade path (we can dream!)

Socket 939 was suppose to be out in May '04 but things have been very
quiet, as in delayed quiet perhaps? I'm guessing 939 socket is a month
or 3 away yet. According to Anandtech, even the 3700+ 754 should have
been out last month yet we got nothing.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1985

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On 09 May 2004 22:16:01 GMT, pccomputerdr@aol.com (Pccomputerdr)
wrote:

>On some of the AMD Athlon 64 CPUs, the cache size is indicated as 1MB. Is that
>a simple typo?

No, its corrent.

> I can't imagine a CPU having that much cache for normal home
>users.

The Athlon 64's aren't for normal home users yet.

> As I remember, in the past, Intel released a CPU with 1MB cache, but it
>was more expensive than a few thousand dollars…

Thats the typical Intel price structure for you.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2g7n6lF5h48eU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Pccomputerdr wrote:
> >> No, just wait for a socket 939 Athlon64.
> >
> > If you don't mind me asking, what is so promising about the socket 939
> > Athlon64?
>
> For a start, Dual Channel without Registered DIMMs. With the 754s, you
have
> single channel. With the 940s, you have Dual Channel, but require
> registered DIMMs.
>
> I think the roadmap will be using 939 for the foreseeable future, whereas
> 754 will be phased out.
>
> This means Dual Channel performance without the ridiculous expense of
> registered DIMMs, and hopefully a decent upgrade path (we can dream!)
>
> Ben
> --
> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html

So lets see, I'm waiting for an A8? (PCI-X) socket 939 and a
X8?? PCI-X pro, with the Omega Drivers of course, and DDR3
Ram; 15,000rpm SATA Raptor drives, anything else?

Luck;
Ken

 

[JohnS]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> What CPU do you recommend to go with ATI X800? Should I wait until Intel
> releases 64-bit CPU or just go with AMD Athlon 64?

None of them until there is both OS and app code for
that hardware. And, not until then does it get debugged.
The best gaming system is still probably whatever hardware
runs 8-bit code best. I'm building and testing new systems
every week using 3DMark and Far Cry to "estimate"
performance quality. So far I've seen no real improvement
at all over my office AMD 2000+ on a Gigabyte 7ZXE
mobo with an ATI Radeon 9000 128. Any of the so-called
faster systems automatically add in the game extras, and
bog down to low frame rates. I've tested up through ATI
9600XT and Nvidia 5700 ( I think ) with both of those
on ASUS mobo. No real improvement at all over the 9000
except in Far Cry, I have better surf ... but lower frame
rates that make the game a little tough to play. You have
got to have the frame rate for a good enjoyable game.
That means the "big stuff" still has to be backed down
to low mode to play well, and not generate artifacts.
Also, in Far Cry, I reinstalled it on my system along
with the new 1.1 patch. It does look better, and the
frame rate went up just a bit. I'll have to get to the
last few episodes to tell if the load problems have been
solved .. about 3 weeks or so 🙂 And ... !!! ... so far
the fastest load time, and the fastest copy time to a zip
disk is still held ( all these years ) by an Intel 166mmx
running Win95B. 'Splain that ? .. and it is a good
4x faster than any of the P4s I have.

johns

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Pccomputerdr wrote:

> On some of the AMD Athlon 64 CPUs, the cache size is indicated as 1MB. Is
> that a simple typo? I can't imagine a CPU having that much cache for
> normal home users. As I remember, in the past, Intel released a CPU with
> 1MB cache, but it was more expensive than a few thousand dollars?

One bit of static RAM takes 2 transistors. A meg with parity takes 18
million. The Athlon-64 has 105 million. That makes the cache less than 20
percent of the cost. Since RAM consists of a large number of identical
cells they may have been able to work economies of scale in the layout to
make it even less than that.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

johns wrote:

>>What CPU do you recommend to go with ATI X800? Should I wait until Intel
>>releases 64-bit CPU or just go with AMD Athlon 64?
>
>
> None of them until there is both OS and app code for
> that hardware. And, not until then does it get debugged.
> The best gaming system is still probably whatever hardware
> runs 8-bit code best.

What?! 8-bit code? Do you have any clue as to what you are talking
about? Are you recommending a Nintendo (NES) system from 1986 as the
best gaming system?

> I'm building and testing new systems
> every week using 3DMark and Far Cry to "estimate"
> performance quality. So far I've seen no real improvement
> at all over my office AMD 2000+ on a Gigabyte 7ZXE
> mobo with an ATI Radeon 9000 128. Any of the so-called
> faster systems automatically add in the game extras, and
> bog down to low frame rates.

What?! Every single game has changeable options that let you adjust
resolution/features. Faster hardware will either let you run the game
at the *same* settings with a faster framerate *or* with increased
resolution and/or visual features at a faster or similiar frame rate.
Faster hardware will not lower your performance over the older hardware
you have. (Hint: That's why we call it *faster* hardware.)

> I've tested up through ATI
> 9600XT and Nvidia 5700 ( I think ) with both of those
> on ASUS mobo. No real improvement at all over the 9000
> except in Far Cry, I have better surf ... but lower frame
> rates that make the game a little tough to play. You have
> got to have the frame rate for a good enjoyable game.

What?! You upgraded from a $60 Radeon 9000 (DX8) to some $150 DX9 cards
and noticed "no real improvements." I sincerely hope you are not a
professional builder, as I would feel sorry for your clients.

> That means the "big stuff" still has to be backed down
> to low mode to play well, and not generate artifacts.
> Also, in Far Cry, I reinstalled it on my system along
> with the new 1.1 patch. It does look better, and the
> frame rate went up just a bit. I'll have to get to the
> last few episodes to tell if the load problems have been
> solved .. about 3 weeks or so 🙂 And ... !!! ... so far
> the fastest load time, and the fastest copy time to a zip
> disk is still held ( all these years ) by an Intel 166mmx
> running Win95B. 'Splain that ? .. and it is a good
> 4x faster than any of the P4s I have.
>
> johns
>

So basically, you feel that the entire computer hardware industry is a
giant hoax? Any computer built 5-6 years ago will perform just as well,
if not better, than any newer one. Millions of people have spent
billions of dollars to upgrade from old Pentium 166MHz PCs with Voodoo2
video cards to today's 3GHz P4s/Athlons with a Radeon/GeForce, and all
that was a complete waste?

Nice. Glad to know there are crackpots out there such as yourself to
confuse people with legitimate questions. In fact, I think I may have
just been trolled. People on the internet can't possible be that
ignorant, can they?

--
cK

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> performance quality. So far I've seen no real improvement
> at all over my office AMD 2000+ on a Gigabyte 7ZXE
> mobo with an ATI Radeon 9000 128. Any of the so-called
Then you haven't tried to run Trainz 2004 after downloading a big layout
with lots of different custom trees.

There's a benchmark!


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
uce@ftc.gov
Thanks, robots.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> > I'm building and testing new systems
> > every week using 3DMark and Far Cry to "estimate"
> > performance quality. So far I've seen no real improvement
> > at all over my office AMD 2000+ on a Gigabyte 7ZXE
> > mobo with an ATI Radeon 9000 128. Any of the so-called
> > faster systems automatically add in the game extras, and
> > bog down to low frame rates.

I feel so much ashamed for what he just said!! Compairing a 9000 non-pro
card to anything newer! ! Heck if he'd said 8500 128mb, now that is still
faster than 9200/ 5200 but 9000!! Sad sad sad ..

Either he has *SERIOUS* driver problems, (like not re-installing drivers
with gfx card upgrade) or he is on windows95

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On 09 May 2004 15:11:45 GMT, pccomputerdr@aol.com (Pccomputerdr)
wrote:

>What CPU do you recommend to go with ATI X800? Should I wait until Intel
>releases 64-bit CPU or just go with AMD Athlon 64?

Intel doesn't have a consumer 64bit CPU. With the X800, you could be
CPU limited with some games - as already shown in some performance
tests.

>The clock speed of the AMD Athlon 64 CPUs seems to be a lot less than any Intel
>Pentium 4 CPUs out there. Does the slower clock speed rate of the AMD Athlon 64
>CPU mean slower CPU performance compared to the performance of the Intel
>Pentium 4 CPUs?

Mhz doesn't mean everything, they are not a unit of PERFORMANCE, ony a
measure of CLOCK RATE. Just like two different totally different cars
will go 60mph at different engine RPMs. ATI cards are typically lower
Mhz than Nvidia... but who wins? The 5900 cards are "

An AMD-64 3200 CPU (About $275~300) is 1000Mhz lower than the P4 3.2
and P4 EE CPUs (Xeon, repackaged - sells for $1000) - yet in most
games and work (other than Video EN-CODING - ie: making videos) the
AMD CPU is faster...

>The new AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 seems to be the latest AMD release at the price of
>$750. Do you think the combination of ATI X800 and AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 is a
>smart choice for an ultimate gaming experience?

Its the fastest if ya got the money... but you need the sockey 939
boards as they use cheaper and faster memory. The AMD64-FX series are
varients of their Opteron BUSINESS CPUs where reliability is more
important.



--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Sun, 09 May 2004 18:43:23 GMT, "Asestar" <a s e s t a r @ s t a r t
.. n o> wrote:

>> The clock speed of the AMD Athlon 64 CPUs seems to be a lot less than any
>Intel
>> Pentium 4 CPUs out there. Does the slower clock speed rate of the AMD
>Athlon 64
>> CPU mean slower CPU performance compared to the performance of the Intel
>> Pentium 4 CPUs?
>
>Take an example: Celeron 2,4GHz cpu VS Duron 1,8GHz. Both are budget
>versions. People think that 2.4GHz cpu is faster than 1.8, they're dead

Even the AMD XP2500 costs less than a Celeron 2.6Ghz CPU.... but the
AMD 2500 runs very fast, while a 2.6Ghz Celeron is not much better
than a P3-1000.

>wrong! Amd's cpu's are much more effective per clock rate. Meaning their
>Duron1,8GHZ cpu is actually working much faster than Celeron 2,4.

A Duron 1.8 would still be as fast a the original P4 1.8...

>On a sidenote, Duron1800 can be considered "2 x Pentium3 900MHz" however,
>this is not the case with celeron 2,4. It is more like "2 x Pentium3 700MHz"
>in most apps.

I don't agree. You can't compare the speed of 1 CPU to that of 2
CPUs. In a typical dual CPU system, it doesn't really double the
performance. An AMD 2500 would still be faster than x2 AMD 1600.

A Celeron 2.4 is on par with a single P3-1000Mhz.



- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- 15yr old boy in Washington was disciplined for drawing such images.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist. (This makes sense?)
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On 09 May 2004 22:16:01 GMT, pccomputerdr@aol.com (Pccomputerdr)
wrote:

>On some of the AMD Athlon 64 CPUs, the cache size is indicated as 1MB. Is that
>a simple typo? I can't imagine a CPU having that much cache for normal home
>users. As I remember, in the past, Intel released a CPU with 1MB cache, but it
>was more expensive than a few thousand dollars…

The AMD FX and Opterons have 1mb of cache. They are not cheap.

These CPUs start around $600 and up.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Sun, 09 May 2004 23:24:31 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> wrote:

>On 09 May 2004 22:16:01 GMT, pccomputerdr@aol.com (Pccomputerdr)
>wrote:
>
>>On some of the AMD Athlon 64 CPUs, the cache size is indicated as 1MB. Is that
>>a simple typo?
>
>No, its corrent.

But for many people, the 512K version with an extra few Mhz makes up
tor it.

>> I can't imagine a CPU having that much cache for normal home
>>users.
>
>The Athlon 64's aren't for normal home users yet.

The AMD64-XPs are for home use, with pricing starting at $180~500 for
home use. The AMD 64 3000 costs about $200 and is still faster than
the $1000 P4EE.

>> As I remember, in the past, Intel released a CPU with 1MB cache, but it
>>was more expensive than a few thousand dollars…
>
>Thats the typical Intel price structure for you.

Paid $800 for a P3-800 many years ago.... My last CPU formyself was
a $100 AMD 2500. 😉


- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- 15yr old boy in Washington was disciplined for drawing such images.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist. (This makes sense?)
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 10 May 2004 06:43:45 -0700, "johns" <johns123@moscow.com>
wrote:

>
>> What CPU do you recommend to go with ATI X800? Should I wait until Intel
>> releases 64-bit CPU or just go with AMD Athlon 64?
>
>None of them until there is both OS and app code for
>that hardware. And, not until then does it get debugged.

While the AMD64 isn't running at its best with Windows-32bit. Unix
and Linux has supported the AMD64s for over a year now. (wow - see how
"skilled" and cutting edge M$ is. But still the AMD64 is kicking ass
with the WIn32bit.

>The best gaming system is still probably whatever hardware
>runs 8-bit code best. I'm building and testing new systems

The simpler the code, less problems. But you're comparing a game
that fits on 64K of ROM rather than 600+MB for a modern game.

>every week using 3DMark and Far Cry to "estimate"
>performance quality. So far I've seen no real improvement
>at all over my office AMD 2000+ on a Gigabyte 7ZXE
>mobo with an ATI Radeon 9000 128. Any of the so-called
>faster systems automatically add in the game extras, and
>bog down to low frame rates. I've tested up through ATI
>9600XT and Nvidia 5700 ( I think ) with both of those
>on ASUS mobo. No real improvement at all over the 9000
>except in Far Cry, I have better surf ... but lower frame

1 - ATI9000 is a very low end card, duh. Its based on a 3+ year old
design..

2 - Then your comparing it with mid-range cards... considering your
trying to play a modern game on a low end card shows you know nothing
about gaming.

3 - The quality of the game is notcable between the 9800Pro and a 5900
(because the 5900 has lower settings for good frame rates).

>solved .. about 3 weeks or so 🙂 And ... !!! ... so far
>the fastest load time, and the fastest copy time to a zip
>disk is still held ( all these years ) by an Intel 166mmx
>running Win95B. 'Splain that ? .. and it is a good
>4x faster than any of the P4s I have.

Doubt that... But then again... My guess you're comparing a small
file with a SCSI ZIP drive.... Maybe the reason its STILL #1 is with
today's 2000~3000Mhz systems with 48x speed CD-Burners - WHO CARES?!
Zip drives are dead. It takes about 2-3 minutes to burn burn 700mb
of data to a CDR. About 10 minutes to burn 4GB of data on a CD.

Lets race a pile of ZIPs to the opticals...


- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- 15yr old boy in Washington was disciplined for drawing such images.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist. (This makes sense?)
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> >wrong! Amd's cpu's are much more effective per clock rate. Meaning their
> >Duron1,8GHZ cpu is actually working much faster than Celeron 2,4.
>
> A Duron 1.8 would still be as fast a the original P4 1.8...

According to Anandtech (if i remember correctly), P4 A 1,8GHz was out
performed in several apps and games by new Duron1600MHz. That's a cpu that
cost 1/4th of what original P4 1.8GHz cost at it's launch.
Duron1,8 is equal to P4A 2.0GHz or faster. Maybe something like 2,2GHz P4,if
there was any.

> >On a sidenote, Duron1800 can be considered "2 x Pentium3 900MHz" however,
> >this is not the case with celeron 2,4. It is more like "2 x Pentium3
700MHz"
> >in most apps.
>
> I don't agree. You can't compare the speed of 1 CPU to that of 2
> CPUs. In a typical dual CPU system, it doesn't really double the
> performance. An AMD 2500 would still be faster than x2 AMD 1600.

Not exactly what i intended to say. I meant "double the performance of P3
900MHz", not dual p3 900 in a system. My bad, should wrote more clearly.

> A Celeron 2.4 is on par with a single P3-1000Mhz.
Agree.. perhaps P3-1200, but not any higher than that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> So lets see, I'm waiting for an A8? (PCI-X) socket 939 and a
>X8?? PCI-X pro, with the Omega Drivers of course, and DDR3
>Ram; 15,000rpm SATA Raptor drives, anything else?
>
>Luck;
> Ken
>
make that SATA-2 with command queing (spelling???), and your set!!!