Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/02/25/22:33:32
Steven Engelhardt wrote:
>
> Well I know I'm going to start some kind of nasty thread here, but I have
> to defend my system.
Well, I own a 6x86, and I don't want to start the thread either, because
you're mostly right. And the original post was entirely wrong.
> A Pentium Pro 200 will be faster on all accounts than the equivalent 6x86
> running a fully 32-bit OS like WinNT, Linux, etc. On a 16-bit OS the 6x86
> will have (marginal, virtually unnoticeable) better integer performance.
> But that's not the killer.
True. All of it. Pentium Pro is a faster chip. The 6x86 isn't meant to
compete with it. It's designed to compete with the Pentium.
> The worst part about the 6x86 is its ghastly FPU performance. A Cyrix 6x86
> 166 has approximately the floating point performance of a Pentium 90. Try
> running Quake or a 3-D application and you'll notice a huge difference.
The FPU is pretty slow, but not quite that bad. My P150 (clock speed
120)
goes about like a Pentium 120 or 100. Although it is very difficult to
determine all of this exactly. The 6x86 takes a very different approach
to the FPU from the Pentium. Cyrix explains it quite honestly with
benchmarks and all (from 3-D games and business apps) on their web page.
http://www.cyrix.com/
> Another terrible problem with the 6x86 is its massive heat generation which
> makes it very sensitive to reflections off of the bus. Microsoft
> encountered this problem frequently enough to justify disabling the L1
> cache on the 6x86 in NT for stability reasons ; this led to huge
> performance losses in the 6x86. There is a patch for the 6x86 under NT,
> but it can introduce system instability. Of course, the 6x86L fixed many
> of these problems.
Yes. My chip was of a late enough revision that it did not have the
problem.
And I've heard that all it took was a call to Cyrix to get the latest
version.
Still, I can hear when my fan goes on or off due to excessive heat, and
it's
off most of the time. (I run my system about 12-14 hours at a time.)
> There are also a few, relatively unfrequent incompatibility issues with the
> 6x86 where applications refuse to run.
I haven't hit this yet, although I know it's true. The worst part is
when
apps check the CPU ID and see that it's a 486. (CyrixInstead!) And say
that
the game (usually games in this case) needs a Pentium. I just ignore and
continue.
> The AMD K5 (the K6 isn't even out yet, but it promises to be killer) is a
> great chip, but I believe they only have up to P-133 equivalent chips up to
> now, so that puts them out of the race. The M2 should be a great chip.
No experience with the K5, but I know that AMD had a few setbacks
resulting
in diminished clock speeds. More on the M2 in my next paragraph...
> Cyrix's and AMD's are great for the money, but I would never choose it
> deliberately over an Intel... yet. The competition promises to keep Intel
> honest and working hard though.
>
> Steven Engelhardt
> sengelha AT uiuc DOT edu
When I bought this system last fall, the M2 (mentioned above) was one of
the
reasons I purchased it. I really couldn't afford a PPro, and comparing a
Pentium to a 6x86 was a no-brainer. The 6x86 is (generally) faster at
the
same P-rating, and much cheaper. Plus, the Cyrix M2 is going to be
amazing.
Very large L1 cache, 32-bit optimizations (I run NT4...), MMX, etc. All
socket compatible with my chip! If I bought a Pentium, I could get MMX
later,
but going to a PPro, (which the M2 will compete with) would require a
new
motherboard. Oh well, just my two cents...
Brian
- Raw text -