At least my K6-2 @ 350 MHz has no chance against Celeron(Mendocino core) @ 333 MHz. Thanks to integrated, full-speed L2 on-die in the Celeron. Though, P2's are different thing with their half-speed L2 on the PCB, let alone K6 with on-motherboard L2 :ROTF:
Had a K6-III 450MHz before, and I would say the Pentium-II 300MHz smokes it.... of course my Pentium-II was running at 450MHz (its was a SL2YK, the 450 in a 300 disguise). :D
What kinda argument is that? I thought we were talking about hardware? Did it dawn on you Intel based chipset boards and cpus had to run that OS too? :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
:up: Win98 SE was awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by SAE
ahhhh winme, yeah winme was my first ever Windows OS, what a great start to using computers! I remember the blue screens I used to get when using the cdrom, a very steep learning curve I can tell you, LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by SAE
This was posted in the AMD section but I thought it was important enough to note here. Because it is NEWS!Quote:
Originally Posted by EnJoY
I posted the following on the AMD thread:
I believe the above comparison was run at a resolution of 1900x1080. What I can't understand is how the Phenom II runing a dual channel system could possibly beat the i7. gosh has argued that AMD in general has a leg in bandwidth but his comments caused a thread to be locked down. I don't know what to think ... If the comparison result is true what could possibly account for this? :shrug:
I hope this is true because it is the main reason I chose AMD over Intel. I have been drawn to the AMD integration of CPU, Memory, GPU, and Chipset. If the Bios and GPU drivers are optimized and the CPU + GPU + Memory + Chipset are optimized then you have a compeling answer to the technical superiority of any "one" element in an Intel/nVidia computing solution. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts so to speak.
Sure they were, it mostly depended on the user and hardware LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
It seems obvious to me, 1920x1080 and 8X AA with Crysis is the very definition of GPU limited. Combined with only 3GB of memory for the i7, which could potentially lead to memory swapping and you have a comparison that doesn't provide any meaningful information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
I didn't see you protesting when they compared 3GB i7 systems vs 2GB C2D/Q systems on SLi. So if i7 brings extra performance WRT C2 due to the RAM, so can Ph-II. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Plus, you can get 8GB DDR2 RAM for the price of a paired 3GB DDR3. Salt on wounds.
Of course, I've never used any such example as something meaningful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
So what? The price of memory has nothing to do with a misleading comparison using extremely GPU limited settings to somehow prove the performance of a CPU.Quote:
Plus, you can get 8GB DDR2 RAM for the price of a paired 3GB DDR3. Salt on wounds.
Discussion is fine, its ok if someone questions a demo for its reasoning.
yea i don't think an extra GB of ram would make that huge of a difference.
Yes Win98SE was sweet and still had to be installed about every 30 to 45 days on a bunch of K6-x due to VIA chipset problems. A friend at Dell once said, "what good is a speedy processor if the platform sucks. E.R. was nice by saying the platform was Weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Yet, Intel played with Buffers to out gun it:rolleyes: Yes, the whole system is slower so that CPU + GPU + Memory + Chipset becomes almost moot. Now, where it does stand out is Platform Stability that had held AMD back for many years.Quote:
I hope this is true because it is the main reason I chose AMD over Intel. I have been drawn to the AMD integration of CPU, Memory, GPU, and Chipset. If the Bios and GPU drivers are optimized and the CPU + GPU + Memory + Chipset are optimized then you have a compeling answer to the technical superiority of any "one" element in an Intel/nVidia computing solution. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts so to speak.
Superiority? Unfortunately AMD has to do better than "one":rofl:. For OUR segment of the market (desktop), IMC is more of a Gimmick than a Necessity (that's meant for Intel and AMD). Intel has been building Chipsets a lot longer.
The over clock on Dry ICE is cool, no pun intended.
1GB alone would goto textures. Another 500-1000MB on OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
3GB really aint much today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
What makes you think this was only on an AMD system:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
We had W95/98 on Pentium I 75, Pentium I 166, Pentium 2 400 and Athlon 1400 Thunderbird. You can tell me whatever you want, but if it fails at 4 systems to run normally, also my friends had issues with said OS, then it definately doesnt depend on hardware or user.
98SE was indeed better. Then again 98 ain't 98SE, is it?
Also, stop the trolling, especially since it fails:shakes:
Why would textures go to the RAM? There is more important stuff there than textures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Considering Windows splits half for kernel memory and half for user programs, it's not much at all. :shakes: So with a 3GB system you really only have 1.5GB for programs. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Because thats where the GPU will fetch it before putting it in its own memory. It cant load it from HD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Thats not true. 32bit Windows would assign a 2/2GB. It doesnt matter how much physical memory you actually got. Also its not as such 2GB for user programs. But actually 2GB per thread/instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinas
Aint it tested on 64bit anyway?
Listen Troll, put a sock in it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
I had both and didn't have to re-install Win98SE on my Intel Systems every 30 to 45 days:rolleyes: The VIA chipsets were more of a Problem than AMD processors. 3 of my machines with Intel CHIPSETS had installs on them for 3 years without a re-install. 4 AMD systems while trying to get better revisions LOL!An old Compaq P3 had one W98SE install for 4+ Years. If I didn't have problems with AMD/VIA, I wouldn't say I did.
Not just me, but many of the Geeks at the Commie-port (Commport), Sharkey's and Tom's forums I visted at the time, had problems as well. Many AMD and VIA Fans blamed MS!
Is that so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Next questions: When does the GPU fetch the texture data from RAM? What happens if the texture data fits VRAM? What happens if it does not?
I hope you know the answers. I think you are sailing on unknown waters... It's a trap, really!
;)
When do you learn to read ffs? What did I tell about W95/98 and 98SE? And I'd rather put a sock around it and run naked trough the shopping mall btw, dont know wtf you're on about but it ain't doing this forum any good really:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Also, I didnt have any AMD CPU problems back then, both with a Duron 1000 and Athlon Tunderbird 1400:rolleyes:
Read your own posts and you'd see WTF your problem is:shakes: Your constant Trolling isn't doing the forum any good at all. The above post is a prime example! I've dealt with AMD systems since back to their 386 days. You don't know,you're right, you're clueless about K6 and VIA problems. But it's something seemingly negative about AMD so you troll. So like defending your Mom or Sister's honor you troll or blindly reply in AMD's defense!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
I believed the Overclocks, posted that I did. I have Phenom II at the top of my shopping list. I never wavered as you did after burning up an IMC and Mobo LOL!:rofl: So is this attack personal, something held over from the past?
Its still in main memory....And if textures cant fit the memory on the graphics card it would read it from main memory aswell. We had that function since AGP via GART. But that would be an additional EXTRA amount locked for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Why wouldn't the textures be free'd after they are fetched to VRAM and become useless burden? I remind you that you obviously were talking about low RAM systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Unknown waters... It's a trap! ;)
Why dont you explain it? Or would that make you caught in a "trap" :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
lolololololololol. No no no.
Texture loading depends on the engine structure, either it's majority pre-load (older stuff, think < Unreal 2) or load + stream (Unreal 3, CryEngine 2 etc).
In the first case, the texture space only exists when the textures are loading. After loading it backs off, clears it, and lets the remaining subsystems load. This was more in line with older hardware where resources weren't that readily available and load times weren't tantamount.
In modern engines though, there is a certain space allocated for texture streaming, to provide more variety and detailed textures. However in no [Banana]-ing way does the texture cache alone use that much (1GB). The cache would be close to vRAM size, probably smaller than that.
BTW, Crysis as a game uses about 1.6GB of RAM max, noticably less if you run it in DX10.