Re: [TCLUG:9472] bios

[Troy Johnson <john1536@tc.umn.edu>]

Kelly,

I actually was asking for articles supporting you position:

> > but tech for tech, the Coppermine wins all over the Athlon.

I don't have an official position on this, but here are some links
concerning coppermine (I haven't read through all of these, and this
list is not comprehensive):

http://www.themeter.com/articles/PIII733.shtml
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/99q4/991025/index.html
http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/cpus/intel/coppermine/copperminepreview.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991026-000001.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991026-000020.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991027-000016.html

It's cool, it's new, I wouldn't turn down a free one, but I am not an
Intel booster (mostly because I like paying commodity prices for
hardware). So, when I hear things like this:

> Remove those props and your killer CPU just got killed.

I'd like some information sources to verify so that I can make up my own
opinion. Are there any available?

Thank you for your time,

Troy

"Schoenhofen, Kelly" wrote:
> Well, first of all, I need to push upon you all a premise.
> I'm not a big fan of inserting multimedia extensions into the cpu that
> (insert italics) already are supplied by existing video and/or sound cards
> (end italics). Trends come and trends go, but having a centralized monster
> cpu that handles "everything" has never been my cup of tea (did anyone say
> Winmodem?). MMX never even came close to lighting my fire, as it were. I
> believe in a mix of centralized vs. distributed computing components. Maybe
> you don't, maybe you're looking for a cube-shaped motherboard, who knows,
> who cares.
> Anyhow.
> In the current Athlon vs Coppermine debate, when running anything sans
> OpenGL/DirectX instructions, the Coppermine stomps the Athlon in all
> benchmarks. As soon as you start having the cpu handle any multimedia
> instructions, the Athlon speeds up and the Coppermine slows down.
> I really do believe that the future of 3dvideo is going to be GPU based
> video cards. Once more apps support the t&l concept (and not include their
> own lighting scheme, for instance), you're going to see a difference of
> night and day between the Athlon and Coppermine. The Athlon is heavily,
> heavily supported by its robust multimedia extensions. Remove those props
> and your killer CPU just got killed.
> I want to speed up my framerate and/or video effects by putting in a newer
> video card, not a newer CPU. I actually got into an arguement last night
> (imagine that) with a buncha hoods that actually argued that they _want_
> their framerate to be determined by the speed of their CPU.
> For me, the future is still with Intel based processors.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Johnson [mailto:john1536@tc.umn.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:07 AM
> To: tclug-list@mn-linux.org
> Subject: Re: [TCLUG:9472] bios
> Kelly,
> > but tech for tech, the Coppermine wins all over the Athlon.
> Excuse me for not taking you at your word, but I must ask the question:
> according to who (besides yourself)? I have heard both sides and I am
> not convinced.