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.
I won't walk into my own traps. They were made for you, and did work very well! :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
When textures are being loaded successfully to the VRAM, they are free'd. Keeping them is useless wasting of RAM. Doesn't that make sense? When a texture does not fit into VRAM, it is being kept and then fetched from the RAM when needed. Obviously, this is slow.
You still didnt read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I was talking about W95/98, you're clearly all hyped up about 98SE. I was not talking about that.
Secondly, you said OS instability comes down to the platform and users, simply saying we suck for having AMD and we're so dumb we cant even get Windows to run stable? How's that not trolling? If 10+ people close around me just cant get it to run stable as it should, on multiple platforms, how does this comes down to a retarded user or bad hardware?
I do not care since when you've dealt with AMD systems or you believe those PhII OC's... at all. It's irrelevant, doesnt make you more reliable or what ever. It's actually a damn wonderfull thing how you can manage to simply ignore certain posts and completely go nuts over others. Ive' posted multiple negative comments about AMD/AM2+ myself multiple times, this doesnt make your post really reliable... again.
Im being clueless about VIA/K6? What's your point? What has been your point in your last failposts anyway?
Why do you hate me so much? Please get back on topic or please stop messing up the thread with your Troll rants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
This is called Flamebaiting and sometimes earns a holiday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
According to this pc expert video ram is reserved by the OS at boot. So if you have 1 gig of vram the system will reserve 1 gig of system ram as well. You can verify the ram reserved by your system in device manager.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
http://i34.tinypic.com/2im9mp2.pngQuote:
"Power users with a hankerin' for dual graphics cards may be experiencing something of a sinking feeling, at this juncture. Yes, the 256Mb reserved for my little old graphics card means exactly what you think it means: Those two 768Mb graphics cards you can totally justify buying will eat one point five gigabytes of your 32-bit memory map all by themselves, cutting you down to a 2.5Gb ceiling before you even take the other reservations into account."
Hmm?
Jazzman, from reading that article, I thought what he said was that Video Card RAM is counted as a part of addressable RAM, and hence will limit the amount of the latter if the former is too big, and the system is on 32-bit (much easier to cap).
It certainly did not say that the same amount of RAM is being reserved by the OS as that would be ridiculous.
I disagree Macadamia. The author clearly states that the RAM is reserved by the OS. The larger the VRAM on the video card the larger the mapped reserved area in the OS. As I mentioned above, you can verify this fact by looking at the hex range mapped in device manager, with my card I can see the 512mb reserved. This leaves less area for programs and can hinder game performance. However, I think in the AMD demo (to get the thread back on track) Crysis does not demand more RAM than is available in the 3 gig trichannel system. Nonetheless there could have been other threads active during the comparison test; so we will just have to see what XS members get in January.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
It's not up to the OS, Jazz, it's up to the driver to identify to the OS how much ram should be reserved. It's teh same for BIOS remapping...ATI cards reserve 256MB physical in bios only, even if they have 1GB of onboard vram.
I had 2x 3870x2, and going by what's posted in your link, bios should have remapped everything above 2gb, as each card has 512mb of ram, however, it only assigned 256MB per 3870x2...for a total of 512mb reserved.
Video RAM only reserve memory addresses, not memory. As stated with max 4GB on a 32bit system, maybe 400MB is reserved for Windows only. Which means maximum memory is only 3.6GB. If you only has 512MB of memory you wont notice a thing. But if you have 4GB of memory you will only be able to use 3.6GB.
Jazzman, is that so? Then how I was able to run an XP system with 128 MB of RAM which had GeForce 4 MX 4000 with 128 MB of VRAM? It ran Soldat and Teeworlds just fine. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eson
PAE solves this issue.
Becuase you've not exceeded teh 4gb maximum of 32-bit programming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
XP reserves so much ram per device, in order to be able to communicate with it...commands get cached within this "space". In the end it doesn't really matter, as most 32-bit programs are capped at 2gb of usable mem, so that windows and devices have what they need to operate.
But it's Virtual addresses...this is what Jazzman is talking about. Physical ram is different, and dealt with by bios.
Or as we say in Dutch, UPG:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Just a bit sad but well, not my problem.
http://www.maximumpc.com/forums/view...5b99978de10f8eQuote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
The way I was told just what Jazzman was told. Here's the reply from that thread.Quote:
System is up and RUNNING with 4 GB of RAM.It's quite a crazy difference between 2 and 4 GB. RAM shows up as 2.8 GB from Windows Task Manager.
Quite happy with the new RAM. (My video card is a 1GB 9800GX2,so that's what is probably affecting the total amount of RAM showing up under Windows Task Manager.) Also,I'm running 32-bit Vista Ultimate.
I wonder if the Memory allocation for Video/Graphic settings in the BIOS will change anything. I should have tested it. I saw my RAM total drop as well when I went from a 256MB X1800 to a 512MB 3850, and even the 64MB on my sound card is eats up 64MB of system RAM. That or it magically used 64MB somewhere else.Quote:
Yeah, that's about right. 4096MB (installed RAM) - 1024MB frame buffer = 3072MB available. Less MMIO devices, 2.8GB sounds about right - you're only losing about another 256MB or so (addressable RAM) to the motherboard devices & add-in cards.
Donnie, that's how nV cards behave, not ALL cards. Which is my point, BTW. The used info here is of a limited scope. That's how it works in that situation, but not all situations are the same.
:shrug:
I'm not into arguing today, so I'll also note that SP1 fixes the issues with 4GB showing less than 4gb, and for those that it doesn't there is a fix from Microsoft which fixes the issus, which was in a thread here recently. Check my posts.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950233
I'm not arguing either, I said I was told, NOT I know. As the other link talked about, this issue is still there, just NOT reported. But yes, thanks for the link:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
Closed