I tend to think there is no bad hardware but bad uses of it.

Con 2 botones wrote on 2021-09-22, 12:50:

I tend to think there is no bad hardware but bad uses of it.

Find me a good use for a dedicated PhysX add on card.

appiah4 wrote on 2021-09-22, 13:23:

Con 2 botones wrote on 2021-09-22, 12:50:

I tend to think there is no bad hardware but bad uses of it.

Find me a good use for a dedicated PhysX add on card.

😀 hehe

PhysX stuff kinda bogs on Athlon X2s, so it helps those out a bit.

"Why buy an AMD K6-II 450 or PII 233 when an overclocked MMX will work just about the same? The K6-II was weak and the PII still used a 66MHz bus speed. "

A K6/2 at 400-500mhz might indeed be weak in FPU when compared to a middling Pentium II, but it is miles faster than PMMX even when the Pentium is overclocked to say 250mhz.
The Pentium MIGHT outperform it in Quake (i doubt it honestly), but the K6/2 will destroy it in pretty much every single other game/application/benchmark that you can think of.

People seem to think the PMMX - 233 is the be all and end all of the S7/SS7 era for some reason....I really don't get this.
K6/2 are so much faster in nearly every scenario and are usually easy to source.
Even the K6-2/3+ chips aren't SUPER expensive or hard to find.

I'm sorry I got a bit sidetracked there...I also have a bit of a soft spot for the SiS 6326 , my first PC that was entirely mine had a PC Chips M598LMR board with the SiS530 chipset, so the IGP version of the 6326. It was pretty miserable at 3D but I played a tons of games on that machine and later even tried a PCI variant of the card in the same machine. Lots of frustration trying to get Unreal playable but good memories all in all.
Not a great performing card but really compatible overall.

I mean even the K6-233 beats up the PMMX-233 on some stuff.... some stuff doesn't count you say? Really wanna go there when Quake is the only thing Pentium has going for it ?By K6-2-300 it was totally in AMDs rearview mirror, not even eating it's dust, it had all settled back down 3 miles down the road.

HangarAte2nds! wrote on 2021-09-22, 09:50:

Why buy an AMD K6-II 450 or PII 233 when an overclocked MMX will work just about the same? The K6-II was weak and the PII still used a 66MHz bus speed. The P5A is a good board but it wasn't a particularly expensive board originally.

That ASUS motherboard can handle K6-2 CPUs without any issues and are much better than an overclocked Pentium MMX especially if you get one with CXT core for write combining support. PII CPUs have the L2 cache chips on the slot PCB unlike the K6-2 and PMMX (albeit at half of the CPU speed unlike the K6-III, K6plus or later PIII CPUs) and PII CPUs with 100 MHz FSB came later.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2021-09-22, 15:30:

A K6/2 at 400-500mhz might indeed be weak in FPU when compared to a middling Pentium II, but it is miles faster than PMMX even w […]
Show full quote

A K6/2 at 400-500mhz might indeed be weak in FPU when compared to a middling Pentium II, but it is miles faster than PMMX even when the Pentium is overclocked to say 250mhz.
The Pentium MIGHT outperform it in Quake (i doubt it honestly), but the K6/2 will destroy it in pretty much every single other game/application/benchmark that you can think of.

People seem to think the PMMX - 233 is the be all and end all of the S7/SS7 era for some reason....I really don't get this.
K6/2 are so much faster in nearly every scenario and are usually easy to source.
Even the K6-2/3+ chips aren't SUPER expensive or hard to find.

P233MMX is the best one among non-Super Socket 7 CPUs unless you have a voltage adapter and/or motherboard that can support core voltage below 2.8v with a BIOS that can tolerate them.

While the K6-2+ can run Quake at 640x400 well with write combining enabled, I ran Quake at 400x300 with an overlocked P233MMX at 262 MHz prior upgrading and it wasn't bad. The non-pipelined FPU weakness is also noticeable on 3D accelerated games in Windows unless the software or the video card driver supports 3DNow!.

Only the K6-2 and K6-2+ CPUs are easy to find at lower prices but K6-III or K6-III+ are currently at outrageous prices. The original K6 is only better at integer workloads and lacks the 3DNow! instructions.

Gmlb256 wrote on 2021-09-22, 15:47:

P233MMX is the best one around non-Super Socket 7 CPUs unless you have a voltage adapter and/or motherboard that can support cor […]
Show full quote

Jasin Natael wrote on 2021-09-22, 15:30:

"Why buy an AMD K6-II 450 or PII 233 when an overclocked MMX will work just about the same? The K6-II was weak and the PII still […]
Show full quote

"Why buy an AMD K6-II 450 or PII 233 when an overclocked MMX will work just about the same? The K6-II was weak and the PII still used a 66MHz bus speed. "

A K6/2 at 400-500mhz might indeed be weak in FPU when compared to a middling Pentium II, but it is miles faster than PMMX even when the Pentium is overclocked to say 250mhz.
The Pentium MIGHT outperform it in Quake (i doubt it honestly), but the K6/2 will destroy it in pretty much every single other game/application/benchmark that you can think of.

People seem to think the PMMX - 233 is the be all and end all of the S7/SS7 era for some reason....I really don't get this.
K6/2 are so much faster in nearly every scenario and are usually easy to source.
Even the K6-2/3+ chips aren't SUPER expensive or hard to find.

P233MMX is the best one around non-Super Socket 7 CPUs unless you have a voltage adapter and/or motherboard that can support core voltage below 2.8v with a BIOS that can tolerate them . PII CPUs have the L2 cache chips in the slot unlike the K6-2 (albeit at half of the CPU speed unlike the K6-III, K6plus or later PIII CPUs) and PII CPUs with 100 MHz FSB came later.

While the K6-2+ can run Quake at 640x400 well with write combining enabled, I ran Quake at 400x300 with an overlocked P233MMX at 262 MHz prior upgrading and it wasn't bad. Only the K6-2 and K6-2+ CPUs are easy to find at lower prices but K6-III or K6-III+ are currently at outrageous prices.

The original K6 is only better at integer workloads and lacks the 3DNow! instructions.

Best Intel socket 7 cpu, doesn't mean its the best socket 7 cpu though.
There are loads of boards that will support the plus chips, offically and otherwise.
But even that aside, the K62 chips work at 66mhz FSB all day long. It is silly to limit yourself, unless you just WANT the Intel chip. And that is fine if you do, but don't pretend it is the fastest available. It just isn't. Even a K6 classic can be competitive at higher clocks speeds.

It is like having a socket 775 board and insisting that you can only run Pentium 4 CPUs in it. Ignoring that nearly all of them supported many different Core 2 chips.

I think you should check out this if your haven't.

The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

Jasin Natael wrote on 2021-09-22, 16:43:

Best Intel socket 7 cpu, doesn't mean its the best socket 7 cpu though. There are loads of boards that will support the plus chi […]
Show full quote

Best Intel socket 7 cpu, doesn't mean its the best socket 7 cpu though.
There are loads of boards that will support the plus chips, offically and otherwise.
But even that aside, the K62 chips work at 66mhz FSB all day long. It is silly to limit yourself, unless you just WANT the Intel chip. And that is fine if you do, but don't pretend it is the fastest available. It just isn't. Even a K6 classic can be competitive at higher clocks speeds.

It is like having a socket 775 board and insisting that you can only run Pentium 4 CPUs in it. Ignoring that nearly all of them supported many different Core 2 chips.

I think you should check out this if your haven't.

The Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison

I know all that stuff (such as mediocre 16-bit performance on P6 based CPUs due to partial register stalling and the best overall Socket 7 CPU in general) and even have checked that thread before posting. I can even run my K6-2+ at 50 MHz FSB with a turbo button (my motherboard has the connection for this) for even more flexibility, currently running it at 75 MHz FSB.

Most of these motherboards and BIOS patches came later after the Pentium MMX was released, I was talking about how the things were at the time. Currently if a motherboard has proper support, then it's very silly to be artificially limited like you said.

Gmlb256 wrote on 2021-09-22, 15:47:

P233MMX is the best one among non-Super Socket 7 CPUs unless you have a voltage adapter and/or motherboard that can support core voltage below 2.8v with a BIOS that can tolerate them.

No it's not, that is the K6-2/400. Yes it's rated for 2.2V but it can run on 2.8V.

appiah4 wrote on 2021-09-22, 17:58:

No it's not, that is the K6-2/400. Yes it's rated for 2.2V but it can run on 2.8V.

But it will run hotter and requires better cooling. 😉 That's a Super Socket 7 CPU btw.

Well maybe you can think of a way to tell them they're not allowed to run on 430TX and 430HX etc, because the little rascals do anyway.

BitWrangler wrote on 2021-09-22, 18:25:

Well maybe you can think of a way to tell them they're not allowed to run on 430TX and 430HX etc, because the little rascals do anyway.

I'm a little rascal due to running it on a Gigabyte 430VX motherboard with a voltage adapter. 😁

Apparently they think that I have no idea about this and start lumping Super Socket 7 stuff with vanilla Socket 7. I consider anything SS7 for things capable of 100 MHz FSB support officially, CPU multiplier beyond 3.5x, core voltage below 2.8v or having an AGP slot on the motherboards.

I think the S7 vs SS7 is a bit arbitrary. Some say it's the 100mhz FSB and some say it's the AGP.....
My "super" 7 system has neither, I'm using a PC Chips board with a FSB of 83mhz and a PCI Voodoo 3, but I'm also running a k6-3+ chip.

So really these definitions mean nothing. It was never an official standard, it's just a way for people to differentiate between the two.
You could say the same symmetry exists with the Socket 3 stuff. A DX4-100 isn't the BEST socket 3 chip but many people think of it as such, even though a AMD X5 or a Cyrix 5x86 will outperform them by a significant degree.

Hell, If we were trying to stay within "generations" to denote what processor is the best for a platform then I would have to still be using my Ryzen 7 1700 on my b350 motherboard.....
But I'm not I'm running a 3900x because it is the "best" CPU that the board will support.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2021-09-22, 19:55:

I think the S7 vs SS7 is a bit arbitrary. Some say it's the 100mhz FSB and some say it's the AGP..... My "super" 7 system has ne […]
Show full quote

I think the S7 vs SS7 is a bit arbitrary. Some say it's the 100mhz FSB and some say it's the AGP.....
My "super" 7 system has neither, I'm using a PC Chips board with a FSB of 83mhz and a PCI Voodoo 3, but I'm also running a k6-3+ chip.

So really these definitions mean nothing. It was never an official standard, it's just a way for people to differentiate between the two.
You could say the same symmetry exists with the Socket 3 stuff. A DX4-100 isn't the BEST socket 3 chip but many people think of it as such, even though a AMD X5 or a Cyrix 5x86 will outperform them by a significant degree.

Hell, If we were trying to stay within "generations" to denote what processor is the best for a platform then I would have to still be using my Ryzen 7 1700 on my b350 motherboard.....
But I'm not I'm running a 3900x because it is the "best" CPU that the board will support.

SS7 appeared after Intel moved to the Slot 1 platform and was a budget segment. Socket 7 is an official standard created by Intel and they clearly set the specifications, stuff such as 75 and 83 MHz FSB were meant for overclocking and aren't part of the standard.

These late 486 CPUs (including the DX4-100) didn't appear before Intel released the Pentium CPU which were marketed for servers initially due to being prohibitively expensive for consumers back then. The Socket 3 became a low-end platform by the time the Pentium creep into the mainstream.

I don't have any problem with people mixing computer parts from different generations though. Just that they need to get the facts straight.

I think that the best CPU for a Socket 7 board (not ss7) is the k6-2 400 CXT core that can run at 6x66, (they interpret the 2x multiplier as 6x,) and some socket 7 boards have a 2.5v option, I have one.

The non-SS7 motherboards with these voltage options didn't exist until later revisions around 1997 when the specifications for the K6 "Little Foot" were around 2.2v of core voltage.

This thread is getting derailed into an argument between S7 and SS7. It should be moved, I didn't intend this to be a long argument.

Sorry, I got carried away by the conversation, I apologize. I also have a SIS 6326 and it is not as bad as they say, being its last revision of course. Although it only makes sense to use it with a suitable system like a low end PII or SS7 CPU.

Gmlb256 wrote on 2021-09-22, 20:40:

The non-SS7 motherboards with these voltage options didn't exist until later revisions around 1997 when the specifications for the K6 "Little Foot" were around 2.2v of core voltage.

This thread is getting derailed into an argument between S7 and SS7. It should be moved, I didn't intend this to be a long argument.

I think I am partly to blame for this. I didn't mean to derail the thread, my apologies.