Old Thrashbarg wrote:

Falcon 3, which only gained a higher-detail graphics setting.

I don't think it was graphics related. Like I posted, Falcon 3 has a higher fidelity flight model option if you have a FPU. In theory it offered a more realistic simulation of the F16's handling. But I've read that it was glitchy so the medium setting was preferred.

tokyoracer wrote:

Well it did on the 68k based machines, I assumed it would do the same on the PC, I was obviously wrong sorry. =/

Don't those Macs also have separate FPU chips?

It's strange to hear that Doom would use the FPU. It's an integer oriented game engine AFAIK. Even most 3D games from those times were designed entirely for integer math. This kind of thing saw a resurgence with cell phone games because their CPUs haven't had FPUs until fairly recently.

swaaye wrote:

tokyoracer wrote:

Well it did on the 68k based machines, I assumed it would do the same on the PC, I was obviously wrong sorry. =/

Don't those Macs also have separate FPU chips?

It's strange to hear that Doom would use the FPU. It's an integer oriented game engine AFAIK. Even most 3D games from those times were designed entirely for integer math. This kind of thing saw a resurgence with cell phone games because their CPUs haven't had FPUs until fairly recently.

Up until the 68040 the 68k series had discrete fpu processors (the 68881 and 68882). Unlike the Pentium and higher processors which always had fpu hardware, the 68040 and 68060 could be specced with or without internal fpu and mmu circuitry (in reality they were usually still there on the chip but either turned off or faulty).

Does the Mac version of Doom use the FPU? I suppose it's possible, but I've run it on '040 Macs both with and without FPUs, and I don't recall any difference in performance or appearance. Macs were sorta in the same boat as PCs in that regard anyway, only the really high-end ones had FPUs, until the switch to PPC (which, incidentally, was around the same time as the Pentium era on PCs)... and, as such, most 68K games didn't make use of the FPU.

@swaaye
Er, you're probably right about Falcon 3... bit of a brain fart there. I never played it much anyway since I'm not big into flight sims, but my mind is so used to working in terms of modern games, that I automatically associate realism-type settings as being graphics related.

Old Thrashbarg wrote:

@swaaye
Er, you're probably right about Falcon 3... bit of a brain fart there. I never played it much anyway since I'm not big into flight sims, but my mind is so used to working in terms of modern games, that I automatically associate realism-type settings as being graphics related.

I'm not much of a flight sim buff either. I remember this Falcon 3 aspect though because a friend way back when had a 286 + Cyrix 287 setup just for the game. 😁

Old Thrashbarg wrote:

Does the Mac version of Doom use the FPU? I suppose it's possible, but I've run it on '040 Macs both with and without FPUs, and I don't recall any difference in performance or appearance. Macs were sorta in the same boat as PCs in that regard anyway, only the really high-end ones had FPUs, until the switch to PPC (which, incidentally, was around the same time as the Pentium era on PCs)... and, as such, most 68K games didn't make use of the FPU.

The Amiga version did but thinking about it, they where all custom ports so I suppose whoever ported it, may have made use of an FPU (if available). Mac's version was alot more mainstream so maybe that doesn't have FPU support. 😒

tokyoracer wrote:

Norton Commander wrote:

tokyoracer wrote:

A few months ago or so, I got hold of an Amstrad Mega-PC and see there's a socket for a Co-Processor (FPU?). After some google'ing I discoverd what I am actually after is a Intel i387 Co-Processor (preferbly at 25Mhz).

I'm curious as to why you would want one as well..Unless you have an application that specifically requires or makes use of it (Lotus 1-2-3, CAD, and Borland products) it will pretty do nothing but occupy space on your motherboard.

Anyone remember if there were any games that used i387?

Well it just could do with that little more oomph but i'm very limited with what I can do with it. A Co Pro. is just one of the things I can add even if it does'nt get used often. Though I too would like to know when it gets used particularly in gameplay. I know Doom uses it but that's made for 486's really.

In your case it's not worth investing in an i387. You will not see any 'ooomph' whatsoever in any games or applications. Even if your CPU starts getting bogged down with heavy processing the i387 will lie dormant. It is there for Floating Point calculations, of which few applications made use of in that era. You will see no speed increase, you will not see smoother multi-tasking, you will not see faster loading times, less disk swapping, etc.

Think in terms of some Voodoo cards...they were add-on cards in the infancy of 3d accelertation. Most games did software 3d rendering so the dumb frame buffer cards were sufficient. Only if a game was written specifically to use hardware 3d would your Voodoo card come to life, otherwise it just sat there, offering no 2d acceleration or noticeable boost in performance.

Same thing with i387 - unless an application is written specifically to utilize it there will no benefit in performance. I know because I had one. I was a noob and thought that adding a co-processor would boost my 386DX-33. I would have had the same boost if I had taped a piece of cardboard in the co-processor socket.

It's your prerogative if you decide you still want one just don't expect anything noticeable in performance.

I think he just wants to fill in the socket. 😉

I've got one for sale, if you'd like to get one regardless of it's utility. I also don't want a fortune for it or anything.. Let me know via PM if you do have interest.

I bought a 40mhz ULSI 387 for about $10 delivered 6 weeks ago, just play the waiting game they do turn up