Which do you prefer on a 486 computer.
Intel or AMD CPU ? Or Other ?
I have always been bias towards Intel for there performance and reliability and compatibility.
But which is better for playing PC games ?
It’s not a question about which company makes the better CPU’s it’a Just about which CPU’s perform better with games in a 486.
Depends what chip exactly.. see this thread, second post, every single chip has been thoroughly compared: The Ultimate 486 Benchmark Comparison
The choice between AMD or Intel model is virtually meaningless (fractions of a frame per second) for games until you're looking for a top end socket 3 chip, then the obvious choices change to AMD and Cyrix(IBM), unless you want to run a Pentium OverDrive. Out of all Intel and AMD choices ignoring the POD, the AM5x86 133 is the clear winner. It will even top a POD overclocked to 100mhz in integer operations by a mile if you can get it overclocked above 133. POD 86 will run games like quake the best (due to it's FPU performance), but not at frame rates that I would consider enjoyable enough to bother anymore.
In the 90s, the AMD and Cyrix chips were usually always available at a discount from the similar Intel part - if you waited long enough for them to be launched. So going AMD was a no brainer for home users who were self building.
All that said, for gaming performance with no budget considerations, my pick would be a Cyrix 5x86 running at 150mhz
Sup. I like computers. Are you a computer?
wrote:POD 86 will run games like quake the best (due to it's FPU performance), but not at frame rates that I would consider enjoyable enough to bother anymore.
Do you not consider a POD83 at 34 fps, or a POD100 at 41 fps playable in GLQuake? Re: Voodoo 1 vs. Voodoo 2 on a 486 It was pretty smooth by my standards.
Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.
wrote:Depends what chip exactly.. see this thread, second post, every single chip has been thoroughly compared: The Ultimate 486 Bench […]
Depends what chip exactly.. see this thread, second post, every single chip has been thoroughly compared: The Ultimate 486 Benchmark Comparison
The choice between AMD or Intel model is virtually meaningless (fractions of a frame per second) for games until you're looking for a top end socket 3 chip, then the obvious choices change to AMD and Cyrix(IBM), unless you want to run a Pentium OverDrive. Out of all Intel and AMD choices ignoring the POD, the AM5x86 133 is the clear winner. It will even top a POD overclocked to 100mhz in integer operations by a mile if you can get it overclocked above 133. POD 86 will run games like quake the best (due to it's FPU performance), but not at frame rates that I would consider enjoyable enough to bother anymore.
In the 90s, the AMD and Cyrix chips were usually always available at a discount from the similar Intel part - if you waited long enough for them to be launched. So going AMD was a no brainer for home users who were self building.
All that said, for gaming performance with no budget considerations, my pick would be a Cyrix 5x86 running at 150mhz
Thanks for the link. So I think I will go with the Intel 486-dx4-100mhz as I have some on hand.
Most people went 486/66 Intel and later AMD 486/133. The 486 era lasted a while (well into Pentium territory).
Collector of old computers, hardware, and software
Even into PII territory. I used my Am5x86-133 until Jan 1999.
Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.
I tend to prefer intel, but my current 486 is an AMD Am486 DX4-100 because the intel chips have gotten a bit more expensive, especially since I tend to favor WriteBack enabled 486 DX4s with 16K L2 Cache for that particular generation. A good DX4100 to me is to best Tweener IMHO.
~The Creeping Network~
My Youtube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/creepingnet
Creepingnet's World - https://creepingnet.neocities.org/
The Creeping Network Repo - https://www.geocities.ws/creepingnet2019/
wrote:wrote:POD 86 will run games like quake the best (due to it's FPU performance), but not at frame rates that I would consider enjoyable enough to bother anymore.
Do you not consider a POD83 at 34 fps, or a POD100 at 41 fps playable in GLQuake? Re: Voodoo 1 vs. Voodoo 2 on a 486 It was pretty smooth by my standards.
Wow those are impressive, I only ever tried in dos / software mode and concluded that an easier to obtain and far cheaper pentium 133 or above system is way better, so I pulled the pod83 and went back to a far less noisy AM5x86. I was never able to get over 20FPS with the POD but it wasn't stable at 100mhz. I only have VLB boards though, that makes me want to hunt down a PCI variant and grab a voodoo2.
Sup. I like computers. Are you a computer?
Did many people really enjoy playing Quake in DOS at 320x200? Looks pretty miserable to me. Then when you shoot up to 640x480, the framerate on a P133 is only 13 fps. For this to play well in DOS at 640x486, seems to me that you really need to use a CPU that is not quite period correct, at which point, you just as well use GLQuake with a 3D accelerator. In such a case, the POD83 and POD100 are again worth consideration.
For most POD83 CPUs to run at 100 MHz, you need to run them at 5 V with a doide to limit the voltage to 4 V. Re: Modifying the POD83's voltage regulator for overclocking
Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.
With the exception of AMD and Cyrix 5x86 chips, I prefer intel.
"Will the highways on the internets become more few?" -Gee Dubya
V'Ger XT|Upgraded AT|Ultimate 386|Super VL/EISA 486|SMP VL/EISA Pentium
With the exception of when there is an exception to Intel, I prefer Intel.
Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.
Intel all the way.
I had a SV8B running for some time and it was not even remotely great. The iDX4 especially at 120mhz(and 133 if you're a sadist) is a little rocket.
If only Intel had made a 150mhz version to rock a 50mhz fsb system.
wrote:Intel all the way.
I had a SV8B running for some time and it was not even remotely great. T.
That's comparing an 8kB L1 AMD with a 16kB L1 Intel though?
AMD has their 16GBC variety (16kB WB). I hope to benchmark one in a couple of weeks against the Intel WT, AMD SV8B and NV8T.
wrote:Did many people really enjoy playing Quake in DOS at 320x200? Looks pretty miserable to me. Then when you shoot up to 640x480, the framerate on a P133 is only 13 fps. For this to play well in DOS at 640x486, seems to me that you really need to use a CPU that is not quite period correct, at which point, you just as well use GLQuake with a 3D accelerator. In such a case, the POD83 and POD100 are again worth consideration.
For most POD83 CPUs to run at 100 MHz, you need to run them at 5 V with a doide to limit the voltage to 4 V. Re: Modifying the POD83's voltage regulator for overclocking
I guess this boils down to the nostalgia factor. I did not have 3d acceleration the first many times I played Quake, so I did play and enjoy it in 320x200. At the time it was perfectly fine for me due to being the same resolution as DOOM and its subsidiaries. I don't believe I purchased my first 3d accelerator until some time in '97. Duke 3d (I know it came out earlier) was the first "3d" game I ever saw running somewhat smoothly in a 640x480 or higher resolution, and then obviously I never wanted 320x200 again.
Sup. I like computers. Are you a computer?
Feature-for-feature, the Intel 486 DX4 write-back 16K is a little faster than the AMD 486 DX4 write-back 16K.
The only systems I have setup with Intel CPUs are those which cannot use other processors, like a dual slot 1 and a dual socket 370. Retrospectively, I find it far more interesting learn about the underdog processors.
I personally have pre-P4 systems setup around the:
Cyrix 5x86-133/4x PCI
IBM 5x86-133/2x PCI
AMD 5x86-160 VLB
AMD K6-III+ 500 PCI
Cyrix MII 433GP AGP
Cyrix MediaGXm-266
VIA C3 Nehemiah 1.4 GHz
Dual PIII-850
Dual Tualatin 1.4 & 1.5 GHz
Texas Instruments TI 486SXL2
NexGen PF110 (coming soon)
If space wasn't an issue, I'd also setup systems around IDT Winchip W2B, AMD K5-PR200, RiSE mp6-333, socket 3 POD100, and maybe a socket 5 pentium.
Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.
wrote:wrote:Intel all the way.
I had a SV8B running for some time and it was not even remotely great. T.That's comparing an 8kB L1 AMD with a 16kB L1 Intel though?
AMD has their 16GBC variety (16kB WB). I hope to benchmark one in a couple of weeks against the Intel WT, AMD SV8B and NV8T.
Unfortunately I did not register the scores for the 8KB version in my comparison, but it was pretty underwhelming. I only took note of the AMD 16KB, iDX &E and iDX &EW models.
Looking forward to some hard numbers regarding the 8- vs 16KB performance delta!
Btw, I still enjoy Quake in 320x200 as it's beyond smooth. For me the blocky rasterization fuses all the world into perfect unity. 512x384 and 640x400 were my favorite resolutions back than when more processing power became available.
My first AMD CPU's where a Nightmare. I purchased AMD over Intel because they where inexpensive however they where a nightmare to get configured.
I have AMD 486dx-100's and some other older Pentium class AMD CPU's.
The problems I use to experience was while installing DOS the installs would fail over and over again.
Never happened with my Intel CPU's
Also networking would sometime not work or cause my computer to crash.
I did notice however that internet browsing and video playback was smoother on AMD.
Maybe it was just my computer motherboard setup's ?
But Intel was always ROCK Solid for me.
So I gave up on AMD and just purchased Intel ever since. I Am just recently willing to try AMD again.
I have not experienced an problems like before so maybe it was just my motherboard setups and bad drivers that was causing my installation problems.
But I hear even with todays Ryzen CPU's there are problems.
So I will stick with ROCK Solid Intel over AMD for reliability, compatibility, and software support.
Win-Tel beat Apple-Motorola !
