Gaming AMD vs Intel

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I read the following article

http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
on amdzone.com.


Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs.
I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on
the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty
board with that 3500+.
The results speak for themselves. The average frame rate across all six
games for the Athlon 64 system is 61fps, while the Pentium 4 averaged
54fps. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl
us over. What is more important, we feel, is how often a game runs
slowly enough that you can feel it. This methodology is consistent with
the one used by a new performance analysis tool in the works at Intel.
We picked arbitrary performance thresholds, but these are numbers based
on years of game playing experience. We picked frame rates at which you
actually notice an impact on how the game feels, not the absolute
minimum required to play and enjoy a game. This is where the Athlon 64
really kicks the Pentium 4 in the teeth. Our P4 system spent almost a
third of the time, across all games, beneath our target minimum FPS.
The Athlon 64 system, on the other hand, spent only 14% of its time
there. This is a difference of a whopping 121%!


"


So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.

I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
like Doom 3.

I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
about the nvidia latest pci-e card.

Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?
111 answers Last reply
More about gaming intel
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    <Conservative.Nate@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1125846925.400356.26180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >I read the following article
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
    > on amdzone.com.



    > So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
    > reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.

    What reviews?

    > I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
    > and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
    > like Doom 3.
    >
    > I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
    > about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
    >
    > Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?
    >

    Yes, AMD all the way.
    --
    Derek
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    <Conservative.Nate@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1125846925.400356.26180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >I read the following article
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
    > on amdzone.com.
    >
    >
    >
    > Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs.
    > I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on
    > the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty
    > board with that 3500+.
    > The results speak for themselves. The average frame rate across all six
    > games for the Athlon 64 system is 61fps, while the Pentium 4 averaged
    > 54fps. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl
    > us over. What is more important, we feel, is how often a game runs
    > slowly enough that you can feel it. This methodology is consistent with
    > the one used by a new performance analysis tool in the works at Intel.
    > We picked arbitrary performance thresholds, but these are numbers based
    > on years of game playing experience. We picked frame rates at which you
    > actually notice an impact on how the game feels, not the absolute
    > minimum required to play and enjoy a game. This is where the Athlon 64
    > really kicks the Pentium 4 in the teeth. Our P4 system spent almost a
    > third of the time, across all games, beneath our target minimum FPS.
    > The Athlon 64 system, on the other hand, spent only 14% of its time
    > there. This is a difference of a whopping 121%!
    >
    >
    >
    > "
    >
    >
    > So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
    > reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.
    >
    > I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
    > and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
    > like Doom 3.
    >
    > I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
    > about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
    >
    > Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?
    >

    Yep, just tell the devs and hardware makers to come up with some 64 bit code
    now :)
    McG.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    You would be happy with AMD or Intel, both would play games just fine.
    I personal would go AMD as the price for performance is cheaper with AMD.
    AMD also beat Intel to coming out with 64 bit CPUs

    Rumors are that the new ATI coming out soon is faster then NVIDIA

    <Conservative.Nate@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1125846925.400356.26180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >I read the following article
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
    > on amdzone.com.
    >
    >
    >
    > Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs.
    > I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on
    > the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty
    > board with that 3500+.
    > The results speak for themselves. The average frame rate across all six
    > games for the Athlon 64 system is 61fps, while the Pentium 4 averaged
    > 54fps. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl
    > us over. What is more important, we feel, is how often a game runs
    > slowly enough that you can feel it. This methodology is consistent with
    > the one used by a new performance analysis tool in the works at Intel.
    > We picked arbitrary performance thresholds, but these are numbers based
    > on years of game playing experience. We picked frame rates at which you
    > actually notice an impact on how the game feels, not the absolute
    > minimum required to play and enjoy a game. This is where the Athlon 64
    > really kicks the Pentium 4 in the teeth. Our P4 system spent almost a
    > third of the time, across all games, beneath our target minimum FPS.
    > The Athlon 64 system, on the other hand, spent only 14% of its time
    > there. This is a difference of a whopping 121%!
    >
    >
    >
    > "
    >
    >
    > So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
    > reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.
    >
    > I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
    > and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
    > like Doom 3.
    >
    > I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
    > about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
    >
    > Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On 4 Sep 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Conservative.Nate@gmail.com wrote:

    >I read the following article
    >
    >http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
    >on amdzone.com.

    Hehe, www.amdzone.com is, not surprisingly, a VERY pro-AMD/anti-Intel
    site, so don't expect to see anything except "AMD is the greatest"
    from them! That being said, the article they are quoting is from a
    much less biased source.

    >So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
    >reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.

    ??? Really? When it comes to gaming Intel has been beaten pretty
    soundly in virtually all tests I've seen since the Athlon64 was
    released two years ago. Gaming is one area where AMD has the most
    definite and obvious performance lead.

    >I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
    >and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
    >like Doom 3.

    AMD's Athlon64 chips are unquestionably the way to go for gaming
    performance IMO. Their performance/dollar is a fair bit higher than
    Intel's pretty much across the board, from their low-end (Socket 754)
    Sempron models right up to their top-end Athlon64 FX chips. Dollar
    for dollar the AMD chips are usually ~15-20% faster.

    >I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
    >about the nvidia latest pci-e card.

    If you can afford it, the nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX is the best out
    there. Alternatively there is the 7800GT which offers close to the
    same performance with a price tag that's about $100 less.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    AMD is more than just cheaper,they are significantly faster in gameplay,run
    much cooler,and were the first with dual core,which could take away the one
    edge Intel had in multi-tasking.
    As for ATI,they better get a move on if they want to keep pace with
    Nvidia,so far all I've heard from them is rumors.They've been promising
    Crossfire for months,while Nvidia's SLI has already been here for months,and
    the 7800 series gets faster with each new version released.
    "tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:1FKSe.5326$4P5.4248@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > You would be happy with AMD or Intel, both would play games just fine.
    > I personal would go AMD as the price for performance is cheaper with AMD.
    > AMD also beat Intel to coming out with 64 bit CPUs
    >
    > Rumors are that the new ATI coming out soon is faster then NVIDIA
    >
    > <Conservative.Nate@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1125846925.400356.26180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > >I read the following article
    > >
    > > http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
    > > on amdzone.com.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs.
    > > I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on
    > > the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty
    > > board with that 3500+.
    > > The results speak for themselves. The average frame rate across all six
    > > games for the Athlon 64 system is 61fps, while the Pentium 4 averaged
    > > 54fps. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl
    > > us over. What is more important, we feel, is how often a game runs
    > > slowly enough that you can feel it. This methodology is consistent with
    > > the one used by a new performance analysis tool in the works at Intel.
    > > We picked arbitrary performance thresholds, but these are numbers based
    > > on years of game playing experience. We picked frame rates at which you
    > > actually notice an impact on how the game feels, not the absolute
    > > minimum required to play and enjoy a game. This is where the Athlon 64
    > > really kicks the Pentium 4 in the teeth. Our P4 system spent almost a
    > > third of the time, across all games, beneath our target minimum FPS.
    > > The Athlon 64 system, on the other hand, spent only 14% of its time
    > > there. This is a difference of a whopping 121%!
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "
    > >
    > >
    > > So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
    > > reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.
    > >
    > > I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
    > > and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
    > > like Doom 3.
    > >
    > > I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
    > > about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
    > >
    > > Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?
    > >
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Conservative.Nate@gmail.com, 4 Sep 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Anno
    Domini:

    >Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?

    AMD hands down. And ATI too, because it's also a 3-letter acronym starting
    with 'A', as opposed to Intel/NVidia which are 5+ letters & stand for
    nothing. That's my spin on things & I'm stickin to it :)

    --
    A killfile is a friend for life.

    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    I agree that a label is not what makes gaming interesting. I too have used
    them all. Although I must admit this is the first time I broke my AMD
    cherry a few weeks ago and so far am very satisfied/ FX 57. I also just
    got two 7800 SLI and that's great too. Before that though it was a coup of
    years or so of ATI which before that was an even longer period of Nvdia in
    the ATI maybe bad driver support days.
    The one thing you never hear about is a Creative fan boy because the
    have been the masters of the monopoly game. They just quietly go about
    doing nothing all that radical as far as I am concerned. There is not a
    doubt in my mind that if creative had it's equivalent competitor like in the
    graphics and cpu arena sound would be better also. Not that there is
    anything greatly wrong with creative sound ,particularly when most people
    play their games through low end speakers nowhere comparable to our high end
    or even middle end home or these days even car speakers.
    I play my games through my reasonably high end home stereo 5.1
    surround system. The sub woofer is 800 watts and it actually hurts to get
    hit by artillery in Battlefront 2 as I sit right next to it. Never the less
    to say I can really tell the difference between my various creative live and
    audigy cards is not really being too forward. they all sound fine to me but
    not like my DVDs and music disks. I have been gaming since pong in the
    seventies. I don't ever remember once pc gaming took effect a time when
    anybody but Creative had any kind of a foot hold. I do remember cursing
    them in the old DOS days when like 80% of computer problems were sound card
    related.

    "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:92jnh1ho20erfg6jp0935ae3cctc4sv2e2@4ax.com...
    > On 4 Sep 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Conservative.Nate@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    >>I read the following article
    >>
    >>http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
    >>on amdzone.com.
    >
    > Hehe, www.amdzone.com is, not surprisingly, a VERY pro-AMD/anti-Intel
    > site, so don't expect to see anything except "AMD is the greatest"
    > from them! That being said, the article they are quoting is from a
    > much less biased source.
    >
    >>So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
    >>reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.
    >
    > ??? Really? When it comes to gaming Intel has been beaten pretty
    > soundly in virtually all tests I've seen since the Athlon64 was
    > released two years ago. Gaming is one area where AMD has the most
    > definite and obvious performance lead.
    >
    >>I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
    >>and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
    >>like Doom 3.
    >
    > AMD's Athlon64 chips are unquestionably the way to go for gaming
    > performance IMO. Their performance/dollar is a fair bit higher than
    > Intel's pretty much across the board, from their low-end (Socket 754)
    > Sempron models right up to their top-end Athlon64 FX chips. Dollar
    > for dollar the AMD chips are usually ~15-20% faster.
    >
    >>I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
    >>about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
    >
    > If you can afford it, the nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX is the best out
    > there. Alternatively there is the 7800GT which offers close to the
    > same performance with a price tag that's about $100 less.
    >
    > -------------
    > Tony Hill
    > hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Conservative.Nate@gmail.com wrote:
    > So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
    > reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.

    Those reviews must be several years old now. AMD has been tightening
    its hold on the gaming market steady for the past 2-3 years now,
    basically since the Athlon 64 first came out. Prior to that there was a
    period of time (about 6 years ago to 4 years ago) when Intel and AMD
    were trading top spot almost on a weekly basis. Then for a period of
    one year, from about 4 years ago to about 3 years ago, Intel had the
    crown for itself for about a year, as AMD dropped out to concentrate on
    getting the Athlon 64 out.

    Now, it's possible that AMD and Intel will switch positions once again
    in this field, like they have in the past. But there's some evidence
    that AMD will have this crown for several more years still. In the
    transition from the Athlon XP to the Athlon 64, AMD took the time to
    not only improve the design of chips, but it actually redesign some
    very basic concepts of its chips. One example is that the ubiquitous
    front-side bus (FSB), namely AMD got rid of it! The FSB was the method
    by which PC chips had connected to their peripheral devices and its
    memory ever since the first 8088 IBM PC-XT. AMD threw out the FSB, and
    replaced it with two seperate connections, one for the memory and one
    for the peripherals. Intel isn't expected to have a similar system till
    at least 2007; and it's not likely that AMD will remain stagnant
    waiting for Intel to catch up during that time.

    > I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
    > and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
    > like Doom 3.

    None of those tasks are all that demanding for today's generation of
    processors.

    > I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
    > about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
    >
    > Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?

    Well, you touched on one thing that is very important these days: the
    graphics card. The performance war at the CPU level has sort of taken a
    backseat to the war of the video cards for gaming. It's not so much
    Intel vs. AMD as it is Nvidia vs. ATI.

    That being said, AMD does offer some interesting advantages to aid your
    choice of video cards. These days video cards have gotten into a
    dual-core battle of their own, ATI offers its Crossfire technology,
    while Nvidia offers its SLI technology. Due to the seperated memory and
    peripheral connection paths that AMD offers in Athlon 64 these days,
    both Crossfire and SLI work much better under an AMD processor than in
    an Intel processor. I think the numbers they have come up with
    generally show that a Crossfire or SLI system will show a 40%
    improvement under Intel, but an 80% improvement under AMD.

    And that's not all, although this is something that's for the future,
    and won't affect any processor purchase that you make today, there was
    a rumour that AMD has decided to integrate a PCI-e interface directly
    into the processor, which would offer even higher performance for SLI
    or Crossfire. But that's something probably two years out too.

    Yousuf Khan
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:22:51 -0700, YKhan wrote:

    > not only improve the design of chips, but it actually redesign some
    > very basic concepts of its chips. One example is that the ubiquitous
    > front-side bus (FSB), namely AMD got rid of it! The FSB was the method
    > by which PC chips had connected to their peripheral devices and its
    > memory ever since the first 8088 IBM PC-XT. AMD threw out the FSB, and
    > replaced it with two seperate connections, one for the memory and one
    > for the peripherals.

    For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it
    a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition. They did
    however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now has
    it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT link
    for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the move to
    the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead of a
    paralell bus) speed is of little importance.

    --
    KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
    Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
    My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
    Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:14:02 GMT, Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:22:51 -0700, YKhan wrote:
    >
    >> not only improve the design of chips, but it actually redesign some
    >> very basic concepts of its chips. One example is that the ubiquitous
    >> front-side bus (FSB), namely AMD got rid of it! The FSB was the method
    >> by which PC chips had connected to their peripheral devices and its
    >> memory ever since the first 8088 IBM PC-XT. AMD threw out the FSB, and
    >> replaced it with two seperate connections, one for the memory and one
    >> for the peripherals.
    >
    >For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it
    >a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition.

    The term FSB came about with Intel's Pentium Pro, where the dual chip
    CPU/L2 cache package contained a BSB (Back Side Bus) connection between the
    CPU chip and L2 cache chip. Until then the CPU system bus had carried CPU
    <-> L2 cache data as well as I/O and memory transfers. By definition, a
    FSB carried all CPU<->memory and CPU<->I/O transfers... but not CPU<->L2
    cache transfers. To me calling AMD's HT a FSB is about as valid as
    continuing to use North Bridge & South Bridge for the two chips normally
    used in a chipset - it's not really applicable any more but people will say
    it as a convenience term

    > They did
    >however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now has
    >it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT link
    >for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the move to
    >the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead of a
    >paralell bus) speed is of little importance.

    As recently discussed here, HyperTransport is not a serial bus - it *is*
    packetized and it is point-to-point/uni-directional but each byte-width
    path has a separate clock signal and the chip/system designers have to pay
    close attention to clock skew.

    As far as speed, with current Athlon64 systems, the 2-byte-wide down-link
    from CPU->chipset->PCI-e(x16) is, in theory, maxed out at the 1GHz clock
    rate. Put another way, the current PCI-e x16 graphics path has a max
    bandwidth of 4.1GB/s; the HT down-link has a max bandwidth of 4GB/s so in
    theory, at least, it would be possible for memory->graphics transfers to
    saturate the HT down-link.

    I don't think this is a problem for the moment but add in that the 4GB/s HT
    up-link for an integrated graphics chipset could be seriously stressed and
    cause HT traffic contention, it could lead to problems down the road... as
    well as supply ammo to anti-AMD marketing efforts. So yes, speed of HT is
    an issue and the integrated PCI-e that AMD is adding will help mitigate
    those err, concerns.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    >Or, if your pockets allow for it, go for dual
    >dual-core Opteron, making it a quad. Maybe today's games can't take
    >real advantage of multithreading, but I bet the games of tomorrow (and
    >not only games) are already being coded to use multiple cores to their
    >advantage.

    Forgive me, I have not read much about Opteron chips. Are you saying
    a system with dual 64 bit Opteron chips is about the same as what a
    QUAD A64 X2 would be ?
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Conservative.N...@gmail.com wrote:
    > >Or, if your pockets allow for it, go for dual
    > >dual-core Opteron, making it a quad. Maybe today's games can't take
    > >real advantage of multithreading, but I bet the games of tomorrow (and
    > >not only games) are already being coded to use multiple cores to their
    > >advantage.
    >
    > Forgive me, I have not read much about Opteron chips. Are you saying
    > a system with dual 64 bit Opteron chips is about the same as what a
    > QUAD A64 X2 would be ?

    No, A64 systems are limited to one and only one CPU socket. So if you
    have a dual-core A64, then that's all you're ever going to get: two
    cores. However, Opteron workstations often have dual sockets, and
    dual-core Opterons in each socket will mean that you have upto four
    cores.

    Yousuf Khan
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    To me, a bus would be a multi-drop access medium, with multiple devices
    (including CPUs) all sharing a single data path between each other.
    Hypertransport is a point-to-point interface, you can only connect to
    one other device with each HT link. This would be much the same as old
    collision-based Ethernet vs. switched Ethernet.

    Yousuf Khan
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:17:49 -0700, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
    wrote:

    >Ditto for slower ATi vs faster nVidia, it's just that ATi is the one
    >that seems to have so many _issues_ with games while nVidia, "just
    >works".

    What issues do you mean? Not to start a NVidia vs Ati flamewar, but I
    have normally been in the opposite impression. One of the important
    reasons for me to buy ATI over NVidia was that while NVidia seemed to
    usually have an edge in performance (in games like Doom 3 etc.), ATI
    cards seemed to have a cleaner design and work more reliably. Less
    heat, smaller power consumption etc.

    I don't know what the situation will be in the future and whether I
    will jump to NVidia bandwagon, but I'm not replacing my Radeon x800
    for some time yet, especially when I have lots of unplayed/uncompleted
    games in my collection.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:09:35 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

    >>For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it
    >>a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition.
    >
    > The term FSB came about with Intel's Pentium Pro, where the dual chip
    > CPU/L2 cache package contained a BSB (Back Side Bus) connection between the
    > CPU chip and L2 cache chip. Until then the CPU system bus had carried CPU
    > <-> L2 cache data as well as I/O and memory transfers. By definition, a
    > FSB carried all CPU<->memory and CPU<->I/O transfers... but not CPU<->L2
    > cache transfers. To me calling AMD's HT a FSB is about as valid as
    > continuing to use North Bridge & South Bridge for the two chips normally
    > used in a chipset - it's not really applicable any more but people will say
    > it as a convenience term
    >
    FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset. HT link by definition
    is just that, any bus using HT technolog and is not limited to
    connections between a cpu and a chipset. So given the choice of
    calling the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link
    only describes the type of bus, not the bus itself. IOW's using the term
    FSB specifically refers to the connection between the CPU and chipset,
    while using the term HT link could be any of many different type of
    connections an HT link is used for since it's used in many more
    applications than just a FSB. Some refer to the bus as a system bus, but
    that's generic in nature and could even refer to the memory bus since it's
    a part of the system. So, imo, the bus conncetion between the cpu and
    chipset is still a FSB, thus specifically stating what the two ends
    actually connect to. Simply calling it an HT link doesn't descibe any
    particular bus, and shouldn't be assumed that it means a conncetion
    between a xpu and its chipset, as HT links are currently being used for
    other purposes. Be it convenient or not, it's still there.

    >> They did
    >>however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now has
    >>it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT link
    >>for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the move to
    >>the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead of a
    >>paralell bus) speed is of little importance.
    >
    > As recently discussed here, HyperTransport is not a serial bus - it *is*
    > packetized and it is point-to-point/uni-directional but each byte-width
    > path has a separate clock signal and the chip/system designers have to pay
    > close attention to clock skew.
    >
    I'll go with you on this. Probably a paralell packet network would
    describe it better.

    --
    KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
    Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
    My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
    Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "riku" <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote in message
    news:fh8rh1he4ncf9kgpub7ked06bjip8kk5fv@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:17:49 -0700, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Ditto for slower ATi vs faster nVidia, it's just that ATi is the one
    >>that seems to have so many _issues_ with games while nVidia, "just
    >>works".
    >
    > What issues do you mean? Not to start a NVidia vs Ati flamewar, but I
    > have normally been in the opposite impression. One of the important
    > reasons for me to buy ATI over NVidia was that while NVidia seemed to
    > usually have an edge in performance (in games like Doom 3 etc.), ATI
    > cards seemed to have a cleaner design and work more reliably. Less
    > heat, smaller power consumption etc.

    With the Radeon 8500 I had, you couldn't beat it for rock solid performance
    and stability. All the ATI cat drivers i tried worked pretty good with it.
    Then I wanted DX9 and got an FX5900, then a Radeon 9800 Pro (running 2
    puters). With the 9800 stability is out the window, period. So finally,
    I'm thinking it might just be the card itself that's flakey. It's only a
    year later now, I don't think ATI will take it back. But with all the talk
    about how stable and solid the 9800 Pro is in these ng's, I gotta think my
    card might have been flakey from the start.
    I also have a couple newish 7000's for the lesser systems. No problems with
    them either.
    McG.
    >
    > I don't know what the situation will be in the future and whether I
    > will jump to NVidia bandwagon, but I'm not replacing my Radeon x800
    > for some time yet, especially when I have lots of unplayed/uncompleted
    > games in my collection.
    >
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Xocyll"
    snip
    >
    > nVidia learned and they have managed to keep up with it, so it's
    > entirely possible ATi will too.
    >
    snip

    I dunno man. I got my first "clone" (286-12, 2 megs chip dram, 40 meg
    Seagate MFM drive) in 1985. Expensive too. Got a good graphics card for
    the day. Low low price of $269 cause it was the whole bundle. ATI VGA
    Wonder 1.0 512K card. If I still had a working ISA 16 bit slot to put it
    in, I bet it'd still work.
    Drivers were a bit of a hassle back then, and that got worse when ATI
    entered the 'gamers market'. I've got a bunch of ATI cards here, and a
    bunch of Nvidia cards. There's great ones in both batches, but by far,
    Nvidia has been the most consistent with stable drivers, for me.
    ATI has been making cards for a good quarter century, if they ain't 'got it'
    by now I don't really look for them to get it.
    McG.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Praxiteles Democritus <no@email.here> looked up from reading the
    entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
    say:

    >On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:54:30 -0700, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>I don't even know what the latest drivers are for nVidia, because I
    >>haven't had any NEED to change the one that's in there now (61.76)
    >
    >Then you don't play all that many games because I know for a fact
    >there are games out there that only work correctly on the latest
    >Nvidia drivers.

    Well the last couple played just dandy.
    GTA:SA and Guild Wars, both DirectX 9.0c games.

    Even playing CoH, while others swapped drivers in and out I stuck with
    the nVidia drivers and it ran just fine.
    For a good period of time after release NO ATi driver would display CoH
    properly.

    That's the kind of thing I find totally unacceptable.

    Fanboy types made all kinds of excuses, blaming CoH, claiming it had an
    engine that would only work properly with nVidia, etc, etc.

    Funny how all those claims went away when ATi finally sorted out their
    drivers and got it working properly.

    It didn't work properly, ATi changed their drivers, and then it did work
    properly - seems pretty clear the problem was, and i'll put this in bold
    for you, WITH THE ATi DRIVERS.


    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

    > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:09:35 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
    >
    >>>For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it
    >>>a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition.
    >>
    >> The term FSB came about with Intel's Pentium Pro, where the dual chip
    >> CPU/L2 cache package contained a BSB (Back Side Bus) connection between the
    >> CPU chip and L2 cache chip. Until then the CPU system bus had carried CPU
    >> <-> L2 cache data as well as I/O and memory transfers. By definition, a
    >> FSB carried all CPU<->memory and CPU<->I/O transfers... but not CPU<->L2
    >> cache transfers. To me calling AMD's HT a FSB is about as valid as
    >> continuing to use North Bridge & South Bridge for the two chips normally
    >> used in a chipset - it's not really applicable any more but people will say
    >> it as a convenience term
    >>
    > FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.

    Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side <cache> bus"
    of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".

    > HT link by definition
    > is just that, any bus using HT technolog and is not limited to
    > connections between a cpu and a chipset.

    Only in your mind. It is in no way an "FSB", since the term is now
    meaningless. The memory bus is elsewhere, so if there *IS* an "FSB" it's
    the memory bus(ses), not the HT channel. The caches are on the
    "back-side" of the memory interface, not other procesors or I/O.

    > So given the choice of calling
    > the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link only
    > describes the type of bus, not the bus itself.

    FSB doesn't describe it's function at all. What's the "back side" of the
    HT link?

    > IOW's using the term FSB
    > specifically refers to the connection between the CPU and chipset,

    No, it doesn't. I specifically refers to the fact that the caches are on
    the other side (back side) of the P6 memory bus. That architecture was
    around for a while, so it stuck. There was no "FSB" in the P5
    architecture. It's an invention of the P6 and should stay there, since it
    no longer describes any function.


    > while
    > using the term HT link could be any of many different type of
    > connections an HT link is used for since it's used in many more
    > applications than just a FSB. Some refer to the bus as a system bus,

    "System bus" works for me. I/O bus makes more sense.

    > but
    > that's generic in nature and could even refer to the memory bus since
    > it's a part of the system.

    Since it is the intervace from the processor to the "system", it still
    makes sense. "FSB" makes *no* sense, since it's not on the "front" side
    of anything.

    > So, imo, the bus conncetion between the cpu
    > and chipset is still a FSB, thus specifically stating what the two ends
    > actually connect to. Simply calling it an HT link doesn't descibe any
    > particular bus, and shouldn't be assumed that it means a conncetion
    > between a xpu and its chipset, as HT links are currently being used for
    > other purposes. Be it convenient or not, it's still there.

    Your opinion and $2 may be useful in a Starbuck's. They don't much care
    if you're wrong, as long as you have $2.

    >>> They did
    >>>however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now
    >>>has it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT
    >>>link for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the
    >>>move to the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead
    >>>of a paralell bus) speed is of little importance.
    >>
    >> As recently discussed here, HyperTransport is not a serial bus - it
    >> *is* packetized and it is point-to-point/uni-directional but each
    >> byte-width path has a separate clock signal and the chip/system
    >> designers have to pay close attention to clock skew.
    >>
    > I'll go with you on this. Probably a paralell packet network would
    > describe it better.

    Whatever, but it is *NOT* an "FSB". AMD has broken out of that system
    architecture. ...much like Intel broke into it by moving the L2 traffic
    to the *BACK-SIDE* bus.

    --
    Keith
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    keith wrote:
    > Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side <cache> bus"
    > of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".

    Maybe in those days it was better known as the "local bus".

    Yousuf Khan
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Praxiteles Democritus <no@email.here> Spake Unto All:

    >No you're not. You just posted a complete falshood about ATI drivers.
    >From scanning the ATI and Nvidia groups I get the imprssion that Nvida
    >have more driver issues than ATI now. Things do change and what you
    >are saying is based on ancient facts.

    ...although that is what ATI fans have been saying for at least five
    years now.

    And AFAIK ATI cards still have issues with every single OpenGL game
    released, e.g. KOTOR2, NWN, Doom3.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:

    > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
    >
    >> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
    >
    > Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side <cache> bus"
    > of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
    >
    Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB. Let's
    see just how many people you can convince of that.:-)

    While the term may have originated the way you say, it was then later used
    to indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset. Now, that same
    connection is the HT link of the K8. So it only makes sense to use the
    same terminology for the very specific connection even though memory data
    now has own single use bus for the memory. The FSB still carries all other
    IO operations to/from the system. Once they move all this into the CPU,
    there will no longer be a FSB. Until then, a duck by any other name is
    still a duck.

    >> HT link by definition is just that, any bus using HT technolog and
    >> is not limited to connections between a cpu and a chipset.
    >
    > Only in your mind. It is in no way an "FSB", since the term is now
    > meaningless. The memory bus is elsewhere, so if there *IS* an "FSB"
    > it's the memory bus(ses), not the HT channel. The caches are on the
    > "back-side" of the memory interface, not other procesors or I/O.
    >
    And I thought only the government could take something so simple and
    fiubar.

    >> So given the choice of calling
    >> the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link only
    >> describes the type of bus, not the bus itself.
    >
    > FSB doesn't describe it's function at all. What's the "back side" of
    > the HT link?
    >
    What HT link? Ht links are used everywhere. AFAIK, they don't need a
    backside. They function fully indepentant of other buses. If I assume you
    are talking about the HT link used to connect the K8 cpu's to the chipset,
    I'd just answer that it's in the same place as back side of the K7 CPU's
    FSB. You're really digging a hole for yourself here.

    >> IOW's using the term FSB
    >> specifically refers to the connection between the CPU and chipset,
    >
    > No, it doesn't. I specifically refers to the fact that the caches are on
    > the other side (back side) of the P6 memory bus. That architecture was
    > around for a while, so it stuck. There was no "FSB" in the P5
    > architecture. It's an invention of the P6 and should stay there, since
    > it no longer describes any function.
    >
    Why are you stuck on the Pentium Pro. FSB has been used for years to
    indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset.
    >
    >> while
    >> using the term HT link could be any of many different type of
    >> connections an HT link is used for since it's used in many more
    >> applications than just a FSB. Some refer to the bus as a system bus,
    >
    > "System bus" works for me. I/O bus makes more sense.
    >
    Let's see, system buses. PCI, PCI-E, ISA, AGP, and others are all system
    buses. So how are you going to distinquish which one you are talking about
    if you just use system bus? Damn, I wonder if FSB would do that?:-)
    I/O bus. Ditto, and you can throw HTlink into the mix too since it is also
    an I/O bus.

    --
    KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
    Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
    My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
    Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    riku <riku@none.invalid.com> writes:

    > ATI cards seemed to have a cleaner design and work more
    > reliably. Less heat, smaller power consumption etc.

    My experience is the opposite. The 9800 Pro I had in my rig ran really
    hot. The 6600 GT I replaced it with runs cooler. I can't comment on
    the design itself, but the 9800 Pro cooked its own RAM and rendered
    itself unusable for high-performance 3D games in less than a year.

    Of course, individual anecdotes don't really prove anything. :^)

    Nick

    --
    #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:59:41 GMT, Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
    >>
    >>> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
    >>
    >> Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side <cache> bus"
    >> of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
    >>
    >Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB. Let's
    >see just how many people you can convince of that.:-)

    No, the K7s had (the equivalent of) a FSB though I'm not sure AMD ever
    called it that IIRC.

    >While the term may have originated the way you say, it was then later used
    >to indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset. Now, that same
    >connection is the HT link of the K8. So it only makes sense to use the
    >same terminology for the very specific connection even though memory data
    >now has own single use bus for the memory. The FSB still carries all other
    >IO operations to/from the system. Once they move all this into the CPU,
    >there will no longer be a FSB. Until then, a duck by any other name is
    >still a duck.

    NO - the HT is more akin to the Intel Hub interface or the VIA-Link
    interconnect between memory controller/AGP chip and the I/O chip; it was
    AMD's attempt to establish a standard for that type of traffic... since
    Intel had locked theirs up with licensing fees. Much of the old PC North
    Bridge arbitration logic is now in the K8 CPU - it has to be to route to
    the various memory address spaces and for DMA transfers.

    >>> So given the choice of calling
    >>> the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link only
    >>> describes the type of bus, not the bus itself.
    >>
    >> FSB doesn't describe it's function at all. What's the "back side" of
    >> the HT link?
    >>
    >What HT link? Ht links are used everywhere. AFAIK, they don't need a
    >backside. They function fully indepentant of other buses. If I assume you
    >are talking about the HT link used to connect the K8 cpu's to the chipset,
    >I'd just answer that it's in the same place as back side of the K7 CPU's
    >FSB. You're really digging a hole for yourself here.

    The equivalent of FSB on a K8 CPU is inside the CPU die - anything that
    gets out to HT is already defined as I/O traffic. In no way is it a FSB.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> writes:

    > I might buy another one (but NOT from Circuit City) just to see what
    > it should have been all about :-\ Can't they be had for like $200
    > now?

    Never buy anything from Circuit City, especially computer gear.

    If you can stand to wait a couple of days for shipping, I highly
    recommend newegg.com. I'm not affiliated with them, except as a very
    happy customer. They even handle returns and exchanges with courtesy
    and efficiency. And most importantly, their prices can't be beat.

    Nick

    --
    #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Mean_Chlorine" wrote in message
    news:70ash1duibc6nq7tdrcsqi8spg93p7silr@4ax.com...

    > And AFAIK ATI cards still have issues with every single OpenGL game
    > released, e.g. KOTOR2, NWN, Doom3.
    >
    >

    Hmmm, Kotor 2 I had major issues with on one of the planets, the other 2
    games no problems at all
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    McGrandpa wrote:

    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>--
    >>
    >>I'd tend to agree that your particular 9800pro has something wrong with
    >>it - I've had mine for quite a while now (not sure exactly how long, but
    >>at a guess I'd say close to 2 years), and have never had one problem with
    >>it. I don't update drivers every week, but don't wait until the ones I've
    >>got are a year old, either... no driver issues to speak of.
    >>
    >>Cheers,
    >> -j
    >
    >
    > Well that bugs me. Means i've never seen the 9800 Pro 'do its thing' right
    > at all. I might buy another one (but NOT from Circuit City) just to see
    > what it should have been all about :-\ Can't they be had for like $200
    > now?
    > McG.
    >
    >

    $275 Australian if you can find one - surely they'd be less than $200US?
    Usually the rule of thumb I find is similar to converting *C to *F:
    double it and add 30 (percent). I'd expect a new 9800 pro to go for
    around $130 - $150 US.

    Cheers,
    -joe.


    ________________________________________

    Dyslexics have more fnu.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.09.07.06.03.43.197405@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
    > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:
    >
    > > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
    > >
    > >> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
    > >
    > > Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side
    <cache> bus"
    > > of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
    > >
    > Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB.
    Let's
    > see just how many people you can convince of that.:-)

    Wes, are you saying no AMD chip ever had an L2 cache hung off the back
    of the CPU? Wow, is _my_ memory ever going south! ;-)
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>, Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:53:51 -0400,
    Anno Domini:

    >Praxiteles Democritus <no@email.here> looked up from reading the
    >entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
    >say:
    >
    >>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:54:30 -0700, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>I don't even know what the latest drivers are for nVidia, because I
    >>>haven't had any NEED to change the one that's in there now (61.76)
    >>
    >>Then you don't play all that many games because I know for a fact
    >>there are games out there that only work correctly on the latest
    >>Nvidia drivers.
    >
    >Well the last couple played just dandy.
    >GTA:SA and Guild Wars, both DirectX 9.0c games.
    >
    >Even playing CoH, while others swapped drivers in and out I stuck with
    >the nVidia drivers and it ran just fine.
    >For a good period of time after release NO ATi driver would display CoH
    >properly.
    >
    >That's the kind of thing I find totally unacceptable.
    >
    >Fanboy types made all kinds of excuses, blaming CoH, claiming it had an
    >engine that would only work properly with nVidia, etc, etc.
    >
    >Funny how all those claims went away when ATi finally sorted out their
    >drivers and got it working properly.
    >
    >It didn't work properly, ATi changed their drivers, and then it did work
    >properly - seems pretty clear the problem was, and i'll put this in bold
    >for you, WITH THE ATi DRIVERS.

    To be fair, we have no idea how many patches Cryptic issued in the
    background during those few months. One can only assume 'many', given the
    frequency & size of the login patches.
    Having said that, I had a little bit of texture tearing with my 9600Pro &
    latest drivers & no probs after that until about 6 mths later when the game
    said "update your drivers or else". So I did, with only minor visible
    improvements in quality/performance. Ho hum.

    --
    A killfile is a friend for life.

    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com>, Wed, 07 Sep 2005
    00:05:33 GMT, Anno Domini:

    >Well that bugs me. Means i've never seen the 9800 Pro 'do its thing' right
    >at all. I might buy another one (but NOT from Circuit City) just to see
    >what it should have been all about :-\ Can't they be had for like $200
    >now?
    >McG.

    Careful it's not some hardware incompatibility with your mobo or memory/cpu,
    though it's unlikely. Make sure there's a return policy. Or just get a X800
    series if you can afford it - you'll never look back! ;-)

    --
    A killfile is a friend for life.

    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:48:31 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

    > "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2005.09.07.06.03.43.197405@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
    >> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:
    >>
    >> > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
    >> >
    >> > Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side
    > <cache> bus"
    >> > of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
    >> >
    >> Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB.
    > Let's
    >> see just how many people you can convince of that.:-)
    >
    > Wes, are you saying no AMD chip ever had an L2 cache hung off the back
    > of the CPU? Wow, is _my_ memory ever going south! ;-)

    Well, that's was what I said, but I wasn't thinking back past the K7 and
    K8's, and I actually never paid much attention to what they called the
    bus to the earlier cpu's that had cache on the MB. Was that an L2 cache? I
    thought it was L1. Too long ago to remember and I'm too lazy to look it up.:-)
    And I just remembered that the Slot A k7's had it's L2 cache on the cpu
    board too, and not in the cpu die, but I don't recall AMD or anyone else
    using back side bus for it.

    --
    KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
    Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
    My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
    Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:57:23 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

    > On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:48:31 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:
    >
    >> "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
    >> news:pan.2005.09.07.06.03.43.197405@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
    >>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> >> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
    >>> >
    >>> > Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side
    >> <cache> bus"
    >>> > of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
    >>> >
    >>> Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB.
    >> Let's
    >>> see just how many people you can convince of that.:-)
    >>
    >> Wes, are you saying no AMD chip ever had an L2 cache hung off the back
    >> of the CPU? Wow, is _my_ memory ever going south! ;-)
    >
    > Well, that's was what I said, but I wasn't thinking back past the K7 and
    > K8's, and I actually never paid much attention to what they called the
    > bus to the earlier cpu's that had cache on the MB.

    K7s had the L2 on the "back side". It wasn't hooked into the external
    bus, as was socket-7 (and before).

    > Was that an L2 cache? I thought it was L1.

    Modern processors have *long* had seperate I and D L1s, burried in the
    instruction-fetch and load-store elements. The K7s L2 is certainly hung
    off the "back-side", meaning not connected to the system bus. The K8
    further seperates the I/O and memory busses, so there is no longer
    soethign even resembling a "front-side bus". There is (are) memory
    bus(ses) and HT link(s). Alghough, the HT link isn't just an I/O bus. It
    also crries coherency information (but I/O must be cache coherent too).

    > Too long ago to remember and
    > I'm too lazy to look it up.:-) And I just remembered that the Slot A
    > k7's had it's L2 cache on the cpu board too, and not in the cpu die, but
    > I don't recall AMD or anyone else using back side bus for it.

    I'm from Missouri (close, but not really). I never remember a slot-A K7
    with on-board L2. Even the K6-III has an on-chip L2, but allows an
    on-board L3 (mine has a 2MB L3).

    --
    Keith
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:42:58 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


    >
    >I'm from Missouri (close, but not really). I never remember a slot-A K7
    >with on-board L2. Even the K6-III has an on-chip L2, but allows an
    >on-board L3 (mine has a 2MB L3).

    Slot-A didn't have on-die L2 cache.
    K7-500 512K L2 (has a 650Mhz core)
    http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6074/k7500650core0ch.jpg
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:53:57 -0500, Ed wrote:

    > On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:42:58 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>I'm from Missouri (close, but not really). I never remember a slot-A K7
    >>with on-board L2. Even the K6-III has an on-chip L2, but allows an
    >>on-board L3 (mine has a 2MB L3).
    >
    > Slot-A didn't have on-die L2 cache.

    I didn't say it did. Note that the Slot-1 PII didn't have an integrated
    cache either, but the cache was still on the "back side" of the chip. The
    Slot-A K7 was no different.

    > K7-500 512K L2 (has a 650Mhz core)
    > http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6074/k7500650core0ch.jpg

    Sheesh, learn *SOMETHING*! Do start with reading comprehension.

    --
    Keith
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Nick Vargish" <nav+posts@bandersnatch.org> wrote in message
    news:87irxdkobj.fsf@localhost.localdomain...
    > "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> writes:
    >
    >> I might buy another one (but NOT from Circuit City) just to see what
    >> it should have been all about :-\ Can't they be had for like $200
    >> now?
    >
    > Never buy anything from Circuit City, especially computer gear.
    >
    > If you can stand to wait a couple of days for shipping, I highly
    > recommend newegg.com. I'm not affiliated with them, except as a very
    > happy customer. They even handle returns and exchanges with courtesy
    > and efficiency. And most importantly, their prices can't be beat.
    >
    > Nick

    Not if it can be had at a walk-in store here. CC is good for some stuff,
    I'm in there quite a bit. Some of their stuff I just won't buy. Some, yep,
    no reason not to. Like movies :) I've bought hd's, cd/dvd rw's, media,
    cameras, a laptop, 4 LCD monitors, dvd players, vid cards, sound cards and
    movies. I buy supplies there. I won't buy a printer they sell, a complete
    computer system, nor a scanner. On some stuff their selection and pricing
    is fine. On other stuff their selection is dismal. It's about to the point
    all they have I want is some supplies and movies.
    Frys has the selection. thing is, they're a ways down the road and cc is
    right around the corner.

    McG.
    >
    > --
    > #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    > int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    > v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> looked up from reading the entrails
    of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    >Thus spake Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>, Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:53:51 -0400,
    >Anno Domini:
    >
    >>Praxiteles Democritus <no@email.here> looked up from reading the
    >>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
    >>say:
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:54:30 -0700, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I don't even know what the latest drivers are for nVidia, because I
    >>>>haven't had any NEED to change the one that's in there now (61.76)
    >>>
    >>>Then you don't play all that many games because I know for a fact
    >>>there are games out there that only work correctly on the latest
    >>>Nvidia drivers.
    >>
    >>Well the last couple played just dandy.
    >>GTA:SA and Guild Wars, both DirectX 9.0c games.
    >>
    >>Even playing CoH, while others swapped drivers in and out I stuck with
    >>the nVidia drivers and it ran just fine.
    >>For a good period of time after release NO ATi driver would display CoH
    >>properly.
    >>
    >>That's the kind of thing I find totally unacceptable.
    >>
    >>Fanboy types made all kinds of excuses, blaming CoH, claiming it had an
    >>engine that would only work properly with nVidia, etc, etc.
    >>
    >>Funny how all those claims went away when ATi finally sorted out their
    >>drivers and got it working properly.
    >>
    >>It didn't work properly, ATi changed their drivers, and then it did work
    >>properly - seems pretty clear the problem was, and i'll put this in bold
    >>for you, WITH THE ATi DRIVERS.
    >
    >To be fair, we have no idea how many patches Cryptic issued in the
    >background during those few months. One can only assume 'many', given the
    >frequency & size of the login patches.

    I recall posts here or on the CoH forums about new ATi drivers that
    fixed the problem.

    It was funny in a way, because ATi had been blaming Cryptic for the
    problem until they finally sorted out their drivers and got it working
    right.
    It was quite literally use driver X and have problem, use driver X.1 and
    have no problem.

    Not unlike a lot of businesses these days that won't admit there is a
    problem at all while feverishly trying to fix it in the background - see
    any large ISP for this kind of behavior - who will insist the problem is
    on your end and needs driver changes, OS reinstall, etc while KNOWING
    the problem is on their end.

    My sister works for an American call center (in Canada) and they are
    literally not allowed to tell a customer that their system is down, it's
    always "being upgraded".

    I find that kind of behavior pretty intolerable and it's one of the
    reasons I stuck with the ISP I have, since if they have a problem
    they'll tell you they have a problem and are working on it instead of
    insisting there is no problem.


    >Having said that, I had a little bit of texture tearing with my 9600Pro &
    >latest drivers & no probs after that until about 6 mths later when the game
    >said "update your drivers or else". So I did, with only minor visible
    >improvements in quality/performance. Ho hum.

    It's funny, but when I got that same message I updated the drivers and
    found things were choppier, so I reverted to the original drivers i'd
    been using.

    All it was doing was saying "hey your drivers are old, update them" it
    didn't actually care, and there were issues (like night colors on ATi
    cards) that were fixed in newer drivers, so telling everyone to get new
    drivers solves _some_ of the inevitable help requests and complaints.

    If you didn't have those problems, there was no need to update.

    That's something a lot of people don't seem to get, if there is no
    problem, there's no need to update/upgrade/etc whether it's drivers or
    apps. If you don't NEED or want the newly added features in app X,
    what's the point in upgrading to it?

    The only real exception to this is virus definitions and fixed for bug
    exploits, but then those qualify as a NEED.

    On a side note, my father still uses WordPerfect 5.1.
    It's not that he hasn't used later versions of WP and Word, (he has),
    it's just that he used WP5.1's macro functions to do sorting and list
    building and could do up song lists with a couple keypresses once he'd
    made the macros.
    Neither the newer versions of WP nor Word can do that, it's
    functionality that was removed because it wasn't used by the majority of
    users and was chopped out when they "upgraded" it from Dos to Windows.

    Sure the GUI versions are superior in a lot of ways, but for that
    function, one that's NEEDED by him, they don't work at all.
    Luckily there's no problem having 5.1 kicking around since it's not a
    windows app, doesn't stick files all over the place, and CAN'T conflict
    with anything else.

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Nick Vargish <nav+posts@bandersnatch.org>, 07 Sep 2005 09:11:55
    -0400, Anno Domini:

    >riku <riku@none.invalid.com> writes:
    >
    >> ATI cards seemed to have a cleaner design and work more
    >> reliably. Less heat, smaller power consumption etc.
    >
    >My experience is the opposite. The 9800 Pro I had in my rig ran really
    >hot. The 6600 GT I replaced it with runs cooler. I can't comment on
    >the design itself, but the 9800 Pro cooked its own RAM and rendered
    >itself unusable for high-performance 3D games in less than a year.
    >
    >Of course, individual anecdotes don't really prove anything. :^)

    Cards from different generations even less ;-p

    --
    A killfile is a friend for life.

    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> writes:

    > Frys has the selection. thing is, they're a ways down the road and cc is
    > right around the corner.

    Wish they'd open a shop or two in Maryland. From talking to my
    friends, Fry's sounds like nerd heaven...

    "When I die, I want my soul to go to the nearest Fry's."

    Nick

    --
    #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Xocyll wrote:

    > Just a thought, but is that horrible nview desktop manager thing active?

    I unchecked the box but probably I should look at the task manager if it
    is loaded anyway and only not shown in the taskbar. Thanks for the tip!

    --
    Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
    "The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

    >>My experience is the opposite. The 9800 Pro I had in my rig ran really
    >>hot. The 6600 GT I replaced it with runs cooler.

    >>Of course, individual anecdotes don't really prove anything. :^)
    >
    >Cards from different generations even less ;-p

    The 6600GT is known for it's comparatively low power consumption/heat
    production, while the 9800 pro was known for the fairly large number
    of cards which had poor contact between the heatsink and the GPU. Heat
    problems *is* an issue for quite a few 9800 pro owners.
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:0360i19ldjmf9t16qdopqkh1kd342h7vue@4ax.com...
    > Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>>My experience is the opposite. The 9800 Pro I had in my rig ran really
    >>>hot. The 6600 GT I replaced it with runs cooler.
    >
    >>>Of course, individual anecdotes don't really prove anything. :^)
    >>
    >>Cards from different generations even less ;-p
    >
    > The 6600GT is known for it's comparatively low power consumption/heat
    > production, while the 9800 pro was known for the fairly large number
    > of cards which had poor contact between the heatsink and the GPU. Heat
    > problems *is* an issue for quite a few 9800 pro owners.
    >
    Nice tidbit. Since I've had my 9800 Pro for about a year now, I doubt ATI
    will take it back and give me another one :) I've had problems with that
    card from the beginning. I'll see what ATI has to say about it before I
    start working on the card itself. This card was only $250 US when I got it,
    and it's a later version of the card. AFAIK, it doesn't have a temp sensor
    in it, but the symptoms point to overheating. It's behaved the same in
    three intel based rigs and one AMD XP3200 barton rig. Must be the card :)
    McG.
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Nick Vargish" <nav+posts@bandersnatch.org> wrote in message
    news:878xy7lp49.fsf@localhost.localdomain...
    > "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> writes:
    >
    >> Frys has the selection. thing is, they're a ways down the road and cc is
    >> right around the corner.
    >
    > Wish they'd open a shop or two in Maryland. From talking to my
    > friends, Fry's sounds like nerd heaven...

    Maryland :) Loved it while i was stationed there back in the 70's! :)
    Great place, great folks. Almost got married there :) I think I should
    have! You must be near I-95? Gov. Ritchy Hwy? No great places in the
    malls there?
    Frys here in Houston. They're big stores. The newest one that's also
    closest to me is like a small town. I walked in and just stood there
    gaping. Ceiling is at least 15', and people at the other end of the
    building looked like dots. It takes a while to just walk to the back of
    the store :) They got selection. LOTS of selection. They have all kinds
    of great stuff and the staff there were fabulous. I was looking for an
    Epson flatbed that is not mainstream, and only 3 stores in my entire area
    were supposed to stock it. That Frys does stock it, but were out. The
    sales guy found one for me at a little CompUSA just down the highway from
    them. He called the competition and found me what i was looking for. Said
    it could be a week or a month before they got another one. So he took care
    of me. I'll keep shopping that Frys. "If we don't have it, then we'll
    find it for you". I'm impressed. And for folks like us, Frys is like a
    chocolate freak getting turned loose at Willy Wonkas :)
    CPU's, coolers, cases, mobos, psu's, ram, 100 yards of video card shelves,
    FIFTY yards of sound cards! Another 100 yards of drives, another setup just
    for printers, scanners, all in ones. One floor area just for portables.
    Their area for DVD movies and music is as big as my Circuit city store.
    Period. This Frys in Webster, Tx. is like a smallish mall, all under one
    roof completely open inside. They have a food area in there. I went in
    there straight from work, dirty uniform and all. I was treated well. Yes,
    Frys is a great toy store! yes I've been back and bought a few things.
    Even thought about moving over that way :) I should take some pictures of
    that store and post somewhere. I don't think most folks will believe just
    how big that place is!
    Monitors, TV's, surround sound systems, home theater, stuff for the CAR!
    Cables, supplies, software, games.... wow. It's a great place to shop.
    Wear comfy shoes!
    But when it comes to collecting the parts to build a rig with, i'll still go
    to my little shop over here. He can get me things nobody else has yet, and
    good prices. Plus, HE guarantees anything i buy for a year minimum,
    himself. Choices, great to have em!

    >
    > "When I die, I want my soul to go to the nearest Fry's."
    >
    > Nick
    >
    > --
    > #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    > int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    > v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    McGrandpa wrote:
    > "Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:0360i19ldjmf9t16qdopqkh1kd342h7vue@4ax.com...
    > > Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
    > >
    > >>>My experience is the opposite. The 9800 Pro I had in my rig ran really
    > >>>hot. The 6600 GT I replaced it with runs cooler.
    > >
    > >>>Of course, individual anecdotes don't really prove anything. :^)
    > >>
    > >>Cards from different generations even less ;-p
    > >
    > > The 6600GT is known for it's comparatively low power consumption/heat
    > > production, while the 9800 pro was known for the fairly large number
    > > of cards which had poor contact between the heatsink and the GPU. Heat
    > > problems *is* an issue for quite a few 9800 pro owners.
    > >
    > Nice tidbit. Since I've had my 9800 Pro for about a year now, I doubt ATI
    > will take it back and give me another one :) I've had problems with that
    > card from the beginning. I'll see what ATI has to say about it before I
    > start working on the card itself. This card was only $250 US when I got it,
    > and it's a later version of the card. AFAIK, it doesn't have a temp sensor
    > in it, but the symptoms point to overheating. It's behaved the same in
    > three intel based rigs and one AMD XP3200 barton rig. Must be the card :)

    When my ambient temperature in the house rises above 75 degrees (F),
    I've noticed that my GPU will sometimes lock up (9800 pro also) and
    then I get a little window that pops up that says the driver had to
    restart the GPU or some something, basically the game I'm playing just
    freezes for a few seconds then the window pops up, which can crash some
    games that don't ALT-TAB nicely. Doesn't happen real often, but it's
    annoying enough when it does. Some games can recover and just keep
    playing. I imagine if this happened when I was playing an online FPS
    I'd be dead meat. Might even get disconnected from the server because
    the 'lockup' can take a good 4 or 5 seconds to recover from.

    What would be ideal is to have games scale down the processing if the
    GPU temp went above a certain level. So your games don't freeze if the
    GPU gets too hot, they just get uglier. ;)

    Knight37
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> writes:

    > Maryland :) Loved it while i was stationed there back in the 70's! :)
    > Great place, great folks.

    I'm not a native, came here to go to college and wound up
    staying... Did get married here. :^) It's a nice state -- beaches to
    the east, skiing to the west. Not the best of either, but to have both
    within half a day's drive is pretty cool.

    > You must be near I-95? Gov. Ritchy Hwy? No great places in the
    > malls there?

    I'm in the DC Metro area, close to where you'd catch 95 towards
    Baltimore. Our best big-box tech stores seem to be CompUSA, Circuit
    City, and Best Buy, none of which impress me much. There's a
    Microcenter in Virginia that's supposed to be great, but it's not so
    convenient considering how bad the traffic is around here. Less
    stressful just to order from NewEgg and learn patience... Wait for the
    FedEx man like a dog waiting for his master to get home. :^)

    There's a couple of good mom-n-pop stores, but their selection is not
    very wide.

    Your description of Fry's is killing me, man.

    Nick

    --
    #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:59:41 GMT, Wes Newell
    <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
    >>
    >>> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
    >>
    >> Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side <cache> bus"
    >> of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
    >>
    >Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB. Let's
    >see just how many people you can convince of that.:-)

    Not true at all. The original AMD Athlon had both a front-side bus,
    connecting the CPU to the chipset, I/O and memory, and a backside bus
    that connected the CPU to the cache chips on the Slot-A cartridge.
    This was actually the last x86 CPU that I'm aware of which did have a
    frontside bus (Intel had already gone to integrated cache by this
    time).

    Of course, the EV6 bus used to connect Athlon CPUs to their chipsets
    is only kinda-sorta a bus in itself. Really it's more of a
    point-to-point link, though it's in that fuzzy area that blurs the
    lines between the two a bit (where the GTL+ bus used in the P6 is
    definitely a bus and Hypertransport is definitely not a bus, EV6 falls
    somewhere in between).

    >While the term may have originated the way you say, it was then later used
    >to indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset.

    Yes, a lot of people incorrectly refer to the a connection between the
    CPU and the chipset as a "Front Side Bus". Just because lots of
    people make a mistake that doesn't mean that they are right.

    People also still call the memory controller the "northbridge" and the
    I/O chip a "southbridge", which also makes no sense given that they
    are no longer being connected via PCI and they usually aren't bridges
    at all. Again, just because people incorrectly use a term doesn't
    make it correct.

    > Now, that same
    >connection is the HT link of the K8. So it only makes sense to use the
    >same terminology for the very specific connection even though memory data
    >now has own single use bus for the memory.

    It doesn't make any sense with the AthlonXP or the P4 and it makes
    MUCH less sense with the Athlon64/Opteron. Just because it's a common
    mistake doesn't make it any less of a mistake.

    > The FSB still carries all other
    >IO operations to/from the system. Once they move all this into the CPU,
    >there will no longer be a FSB. Until then, a duck by any other name is
    >still a duck.

    Yes, but that still doesn't make a goose a duck, even if lots of
    people mix the two of them up.

    >> FSB doesn't describe it's function at all. What's the "back side" of
    >> the HT link?
    >>
    >What HT link? Ht links are used everywhere. AFAIK, they don't need a
    >backside.

    The point is that you can't have a "front side bus" unless you have a
    corresponding "back side bus". Hypertransport does not have such a
    corresponding back side so therefore it's not the "front side" of
    anything.

    Given that it's not the 'front side' of anything and, as others have
    mentioned, it's not a 'bus' at all then it DEFINITELY is not a "Front
    Side Bus".

    > They function fully indepentant of other buses. If I assume you
    >are talking about the HT link used to connect the K8 cpu's to the chipset,
    >I'd just answer that it's in the same place as back side of the K7 CPU's
    >FSB. You're really digging a hole for yourself here.

    The original Athlon had a backside bus with to the cache chips on the
    cartridge. This was later removed with the "Thunderbird" chips with
    integrated cache. As such, from the "Thunderbird" on forward
    (including all AthlonXP chips) there was no FSB on the AthlonXP. Same
    goes for the PIII from the "Coppermine" onwards as well as ALL P4
    chips. None of those have FSBs, despite the fact that many people
    incorrectly use the term to describe the system bus of said chips.

    >>> IOW's using the term FSB
    >>> specifically refers to the connection between the CPU and chipset,
    >>
    >> No, it doesn't. I specifically refers to the fact that the caches are on
    >> the other side (back side) of the P6 memory bus. That architecture was
    >> around for a while, so it stuck. There was no "FSB" in the P5
    >> architecture. It's an invention of the P6 and should stay there, since
    >> it no longer describes any function.
    >>
    >Why are you stuck on the Pentium Pro. FSB has been used for years to
    >indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset.

    The term "Front Side Bus" was never used with the Pentium chips
    because there was only one bus. FSB came into computer use with the
    PentiumPro where Intel introduced a chip with a Frontside Bus
    (connecting to main memory and I/O) and a Backside bus (connecting to
    cache). The terminology continued through the PII and early PIII
    chips, as well as early Athlon chips, as they had two buses, one for
    memory and I/O and the other for cache. For chips with only a single
    bus the term "FSB" makes no sense. Never has and never will, no
    matter how many people make such a mistake.

    With the Athlon64 and Opteron it's just more obviously incorrect than
    it is with the AthlonXP and P4 chips.

    >>> while
    >>> using the term HT link could be any of many different type of
    >>> connections an HT link is used for since it's used in many more
    >>> applications than just a FSB. Some refer to the bus as a system bus,
    >>
    >> "System bus" works for me. I/O bus makes more sense.
    >>
    >Let's see, system buses. PCI, PCI-E, ISA, AGP, and others are all system
    >buses. So how are you going to distinquish which one you are talking about
    >if you just use system bus? Damn, I wonder if FSB would do that?:-)
    >I/O bus. Ditto, and you can throw HTlink into the mix too since it is also
    >an I/O bus.

    Hypertransport is NOT an 'bus' in any way, shape or form. HT is a
    point-to-point link. PCI-E and AGP are also definitely not buses,
    though I expect many people to incorrectly call them such. PCI and
    ISA are buses

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:42:58 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >> Too long ago to remember and
    >> I'm too lazy to look it up.:-) And I just remembered that the Slot A
    >> k7's had it's L2 cache on the cpu board too, and not in the cpu die, but
    >> I don't recall AMD or anyone else using back side bus for it.
    >
    >I'm from Missouri (close, but not really). I never remember a slot-A K7
    >with on-board L2.

    There were a *few* Slot-A K7 chips that had integrated L2, but they
    were only released for compatibility purposes (much like what Intel
    did with some of their later Slot-1 PIII chips, though AMD released
    far fewer of such chips). You might even be able to find someone
    still selling such a beast if you look hard enough, just do a search
    for "Thunderbird Slot-A".

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk>, Thu, 08 Sep
    2005 13:21:55 +0200, Anno Domini:

    >Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>>My experience is the opposite. The 9800 Pro I had in my rig ran really
    >>>hot. The 6600 GT I replaced it with runs cooler.
    >
    >>>Of course, individual anecdotes don't really prove anything. :^)
    >>
    >>Cards from different generations even less ;-p
    >
    >The 6600GT is known for it's comparatively low power consumption/heat
    >production, while the 9800 pro was known for the fairly large number
    >of cards which had poor contact between the heatsink and the GPU. Heat
    >problems *is* an issue for quite a few 9800 pro owners.

    Yes, but to compare it with the 6600GT, a card a full generation (if not 2!)
    more advanced, is, well, farcical imo. Otherwise, my X800Pro shits all over
    your Riva 128, so that proves ATI is better than NVidia ;-p

    --
    A killfile is a friend for life.

    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

    >Yes, but to compare it with the 6600GT, a card a full generation (if not 2!)
    >more advanced, is, well, farcical imo. Otherwise, my X800Pro shits all over
    >your Riva 128, so that proves ATI is better than NVidia ;-p

    Not wrt power consumption & heat production it doesn't... ;)
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> writes:

    > Yes, but to compare it [9800 Pro] with the 6600GT, a card a full
    > generation (if not 2!) more advanced, is, well, farcical
    > imo. Otherwise, my X800Pro shits all over your Riva 128, so that
    > proves ATI is better than NVidia ;-p

    Well, I wasn't talking about performance, but heat and reliability. If
    anything, you'd expect a card a couple of generations newer to
    generate more heat -- that's the trend with CPUs, and most GPUs --
    just because they're doing more work.

    Nick

    --
    #include<stdio.h> /* sigmask (sig.c) 20041028 PUBLIC DOMAIN */
    int main(c,v)char *v;{return !c?putchar(* /* cc -o sig sig.c */
    v-1)&&main(0,v+1):main(0,"Ojdl!Wbshjti!=ojdlAwbshjti/psh?\v\1");}
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming AMD Intel Video Games