VOGONS


Reply 20 of 36, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
nemesis wrote:
I have a few questions myself along this line. 1. Would a 5x86 have a noticable advantage running a 3d card vs any 486? 2. If […]
Show full quote

I have a few questions myself along this line.
1. Would a 5x86 have a noticable advantage running a 3d card vs any 486?
2. If yes, then wouldn't a Cyrix 5x86 have a better run than an AMD 5x86? (Iirc, Cyrix was closer to a pentium 1 than AMD).
3. Are you including POD in the list for 486?
I guess I'm asking if the motherboard has more impact than the CPU for 3D cards.

It's really the FPU that has a big impact on some games. A faster FPU is better, and a chip that has a Pentium class FPU on board rather than a 486 one is the best of all. POD and Cyrix 5x86 are going to be the fastest where FPU is concerned but if you can get an AMD 5x86 to overclock to 200mhz on your motherboard it won't be completely horrible, either. The POD and AMD 5x86 have the advantage of being more readily available. The Cyrix models are pretty scarce. Don't confuse a Cyrix DX class chip with a Cyrix 5x86, either. They are not going to be the same internally. If a game uses more integer than floating point, it probably doesn't matter as much.

Reply 21 of 36, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

sliderider is correct 😉

*In general, POD83 has the best FPU, but runs at only 83Mhz @ stock. Don't confuse this one with the Intel Overdrive! That processor is "exactly" the same as the standard Intel 486DX class CPU's, and come with 16kb WT cache. There are Intel DX4's with WB cache, but those are still much slower (in FPU performance) then the Intel Pentium Overdrive. The POD83 can sometimes be overclocked to 100Mhz, but even that is an overclock many won't be able to reach.
One problem with overclocking POD is that you can't raise the voltage as it already runs at 5v from the motherboard

*Cyrix 5x86 (not to be confused with Cyrix DX4!!) comes next, being only slower FPU then the POD but running at 100Mhz. There are 2 faster models inexistance, a 120Mhz part (which is scarce, but not impossible to find) and a 133Mhz part (which is nearly im-pos-si-ble to find!).
Best bet is to get a 100Mhz part and try to overclock. Even though the Cyrix 5x86 is known to not overclock well, one Vogoner here has managed to get his 100Mhz part booting at a very respectable 150Mhz!
Also Cyrix 5x86 has some extra options that can be enabled which make Cyrix 5x86 even faster, but those options don't always work.
feipoa is kinda our local Cyrix 5x86 specialist, if you need any info about them it would be a good idea to ask him 😉
He seems to know more about these chips then the Cyrix folks themselves did 😜

*The AMD 5x86 is basically just an AMD DX4, but it is the best AMD DX4-class CPU as it is clocked higher (133Mhz instead of just 100). Extra note:AMD DX4 comes in no less then 3 varieties, and this has to do with the internal cache. There are models with 8kb WT (Write Through), models with 8kb WB (Write Back) and 16kb WB cache. All AMD 5x86's come with 16kb WB cache and all are clocked at 133Mhz. There are 2 faster models available for the AMD 5x86, a 150Mhz part and a 160Mhz part, but both are impossible to find.
I'd suggest to not shell out money for these 150/160 parts as the 133Mhz models are easy overclockers! Especially as you can raise it's voltage 😉
The AMD 5x86 has by far the slowest FPU of the 3, but also has the highest clock rate which (at least partially) make good it's relatively slow FPU. 160Mhz should be obtainable with, say, 50% of these chips?
Some will even run at 200Mhz! But this is rather a crap shoot, most won't run that speed

Confusing, isn't it? 😉

So, Socket 3 FPU in a nutshell and from best to worst:
Intel Pentium Overdrive @ 83Mhz is best (even better if you overclock to 100Mhz, which many can't do though)
Cyrix 5x86 (the faster the better). The 100Mhz are by far the easiest to find, but don't overclock too well (usually).
AMD 5x86 is by far the easiest to find! Just yesterday one was being sold on cpu-world for a mere €4! They have the slowest FPU but do have that slow FPU run at the highest speed of the 3. 133Mhz is standard and 160Mhz is regarded as a realistic overclock with 200Mhz being a possibility

Edit:Of course if you for whatever reason can't manage to find any of these 3 chips, then you could try getting one of those Socket 3 upgrade chip, like the Kingston Turbochip or an Evergreen, but those will not overclock as good as regular AMD 5x86.
Then theres the DX4's, of which exists a LOT of varieties

Edit2:To answer your questions directly:

nemesis wrote:

I have a few questions myself along this line.
1. Would a 5x86 have a noticable advantage running a 3d card vs any 486?

Yes, as all 486-marked CPU's run at either 100Mhz or slower (except for one particular AMD DX4-120 chip). All AMD 5x86's run faster then any 486 and All Cyrix 5x86 are faster then any 486 at the same clock

nemesis wrote:

2. If yes, then wouldn't a Cyrix 5x86 have a better run than an AMD 5x86? (Iirc, Cyrix was closer to a pentium 1 than AMD).

Cyrix 5x86 > AMD 5x86, but only at the same clock rate.
Commonly, Cyrix 5x86 is 100Mhz while AMD 5x86 will be 133 (as a general rule of thumb).

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 23 of 36, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
swaaye wrote:
:exclamation: :exclamation: SEE THE 486 STICKY THREAD!!! :exclamation: :exclamation: […]
Show full quote

😲 😲
SEE THE 486 STICKY THREAD!!!
😲 😲

Feipoa put together a stunning study of socket 3 cpus. Look for the attached PDF.

Lol ok, maybe I should delete my previous post and replace it with "WTF luk up feipoas post u effing n00bxzor" 😜 😜 😜

Edit:Theres a few problems with that topic though.
The DX4's were compared in a bit unfair way, comparing the uncommon Intel DX4 WB with the crappiets AMD DX4, the one with just 8kb WT even though the AMD DX4-100 16kb WB is more common then the Intel one.
The Intel DX4-100 WT is MUCH easier to find. I actually had to search for a couple years before finally getting one, and so did a couple others here.
AMD DX4-100 16kb WB is much easier to find, it's basically just an underclocked 5x86-133

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 24 of 36, by swaaye

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Even if he didn't test every 486 ever made, the results are what we needed around here and I'm glad he did it. It's also perfect for this thread because it includes some 3D benchmarks and Quake.

There are some fun results in there
Quake: Pentium 100 is 35% faster than Am5x86 160 and Cx5x86 133
Doom: Pentium 100 is 40% faster than Am5x86 160 (weird!)

Reply 25 of 36, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
swaaye wrote:
Even if he didn't test every 486 ever made, the results are what we needed around here and I'm glad he did it. It's also perfect […]
Show full quote

Even if he didn't test every 486 ever made, the results are what we needed around here and I'm glad he did it. It's also perfect for this thread because it includes some 3D benchmarks and Quake.

There are some fun results in there
Quake: Pentium 100 is 35% faster than Am5x86 160 and Cx5x86 133
Doom: Pentium 100 is 40% faster than Am5x86 160 (weird!)

Just for the record, I'm not trying to make feipoa's work sound less important then it is 😉

I just tried to give him an answer because I was actually enjoying writing the long reply the whole time I was writing it! 😁

Just see it as shorter and less detailed 😉
I've also included info that wasn't in the stickied topic 😉

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 26 of 36, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
swaaye wrote:

There are some fun results in there
Quake: Pentium 100 is 35% faster than Am5x86 160 and Cx5x86 133
Doom: Pentium 100 is 40% faster than Am5x86 160 (weird!)

Quake: Pentium 100 is 32% faster than Cyrix6x86MX 200 and AMD K5 PR100

😀

apsosig.png
long live PCem

Reply 27 of 36, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
swaaye wrote:

Quake: Pentium 100 is 35% faster than Cx5x86 133

leileilol wrote:

Quake: Pentium 100 is 32% faster than Cyrix6x86MX 200

So Cyrix's 6x86 is actually slower clock for clock then their 5x86??
Even though the 5x86 is a scaled down 6x86?
Weeeiiiird!!

Nice job Cyrix! 😜

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 28 of 36, by nemesis

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Iirc my best experiences with Cyrix chips were with the 486 (you'd be surprised with some of the stuff we got working on it... well maybe not but a lot of people were) and the few times I got to play with a 5x86. Their later models seemed adequate at best, but maybe I'm not remembering it well enough.

Reply 29 of 36, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Admitidly, the AMD DX4-100 didn't get a lot of respect, but I beleive at the time, the 8KB WT version was the most common. The 16KB WB version came a lot later (I don't have one for testing). In terms of practical usage, the AMD DX4-100-WB w/16KB emerged when the X5-133 was on market, so there would have been little interest in a DX4-100-WB-16KB unit.

The Intel DX4-100-WB-16KB was around before the X5-133 and saw widespread usage. I have seen quite a few Intel DX4-WB chips in the past, I'd say about as common as a Cyrix 5x86-120 at the time (1995-6).

EDIT1: If I get my hands on a AMD DX4-100-WB-8KB, AMD DX4-100-WB-16KB, or Intel DX2-66-WB-8KB I'll add them to the list.

I tested an AMD DX4-120-WB-8KB and have not seen a 16KB version. Underclocking an X5-133 to 120 MHz to simulate a DX4-120-WB-16KB just doesn't seem right when they didn't exist. Maybe there should be some kind of time limit for a clock-for-clock comparison, say 1 year to be generous. An AMD DX4-100-WB-8KB would be a nice replacement for the WT unit.

To comment on the subject line, this is a topic that has been whipped to death by a broken pee-pah stick. For starters, you can refer to:

Fastest PCI graphics card in a 486

EDIT2: Tetrium, if you are adding to the analysis of the 486 comparison, can you repost it in the Ultimate 486 Benchmark Comparison thread? It is my eventual intention to incorporate relavent comments into the text and PDF. There's a few typos in the PDF also which may lead to reader confussion, like "It may be argued, however, that the AMD X5-160 is long-term stable at 133 MHz." Obviously, the 133 MHz should read 160 MHz. Corrected in the text, but not yet the PDF.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 30 of 36, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

No time limit for the clock to clock comparison as for us retro guys, it doesn't matter how old a chip is for any given socket.
The AMD DX4 16WB was basically an underclocked (or perhaps even a failed) 133Mhz part, and was perhaps the budget CPU at the time? I don't know.
The Intel DX4 16WB was however only sold as OEM, it never was available in retail stores.
I've seen quite a bit of the Intel 16WT models here in the wild, even 2 of the AMD 120 models, but have not found a single Intel WB model here in the wild, ever.

Even while keeping an eye on cpu-world.com, the Intel 16WB model took me over a year before I could finally snatch one.

I don't think an AMD 120 16kb version existed, but don't know for sure. It was an odd-speed model. I think AMD made it to compete with Intel's 100Mhz models in the Socket 3 market as AMD's CPU was less good clock for clock at that time. Also the AMD 120 model had the benefit of higher FSB over Intel.
Later AMD enhanced it's 486, which basically is a different "updated" core and should be faster clock for clock then it's earlier versions.

I will post the relevant data to your 486 thread tomorrow, right now I'm going to bed 🤣!

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 31 of 36, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
swaaye wrote:
Even if he didn't test every 486 ever made, the results are what we needed around here and I'm glad he did it. It's also perfect […]
Show full quote

Even if he didn't test every 486 ever made, the results are what we needed around here and I'm glad he did it. It's also perfect for this thread because it includes some 3D benchmarks and Quake.

There are some fun results in there
Quake: Pentium 100 is 35% faster than Am5x86 160 and Cx5x86 133
Doom: Pentium 100 is 40% faster than Am5x86 160 (weird!)

Was that an actual socket 7 Pentium or an overclocked POD?

Reply 32 of 36, by feipoa

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

He is refering to the overclocked POD100; I did not include the Socket 7, Pentium100 Quake scores. Although, you can un-normalise the data and figure them out.

Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.

Reply 33 of 36, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
leileilol wrote:
swaaye wrote:

There are some fun results in there
Quake: Pentium 100 is 35% faster than Am5x86 160 and Cx5x86 133
Doom: Pentium 100 is 40% faster than Am5x86 160 (weird!)

Quake: Pentium 100 is 32% faster than Cyrix6x86MX 200 and AMD K5 PR100

😀

I think you're mistaking an overclocked POD for a socket 7 Pentium. .

Reply 34 of 36, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
swaaye wrote:
Even if he didn't test every 486 ever made, the results are what we needed around here and I'm glad he did it. It's also perfect […]
Show full quote

Even if he didn't test every 486 ever made, the results are what we needed around here and I'm glad he did it. It's also perfect for this thread because it includes some 3D benchmarks and Quake.

There are some fun results in there
Quake: Pentium 100 is 35% faster than Am5x86 160 and Cx5x86 133
Doom: Pentium 100 is 40% faster than Am5x86 160 (weird!)

This has me confused. I have seen the specs for Quake and the minimum system requirement calls for a VGA card, not a 3D accelerator, in which case the additional FPU power of the POD wouldn't get very much use. GLQuake does require an OpenGL compliant video card and in that case the POD should be faster. Does Doom require a 3D accelerator or is it a VGA game? I don't understand how the POD can be faster in these games if they aren't 3D accelerated.

Reply 35 of 36, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
sliderider wrote:

I think you're mistaking an overclocked POD for a socket 7 Pentium. .

No, i'm not. The fact is, Abrash's ASM magic was really Pentium specific. 24fps gets on that P100 (real P5, no mmx/POD here), and I remember the 6x86mx200 getting like 14, which is eerily close to AM5x86's 12. The worst part, those 6x86opt tools don't even help much at all.

6x86's smooth in BUILD and even Zdoom though.

apsosig.png
long live PCem

Reply 36 of 36, by swaaye

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

@sliderider

What leileilol said.

A 3D accelerator removes some rendering burden and improves the image quality but it doesn't change that Quake is a floating point heavy game that is optimized for Pentium in many ways (Pentium was the first superscalar x86 and it takes advantage of this). The CPU needs to set up a lot of the scene before it gets to the 3D card, after all.

There are some obscenely in-depth articles on how Quake works over here
http://drdobbs.com/high-performance-computing/184404919