AMD K6/2 faster than a 933MHz Pentium II?

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:51:43 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:47:09 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


I could try more RAM but the 64MB 72pin sticks are rare, none on
Ebay,
and usually pretty expensive on the rare occcasions there are.
Gonna give it a go a 4x. Fingers crossed :O)

Seems like it won't do 4X, came up as 2X, seems like maybe the chip
is 'throttled back', either that or it didn't detect one of the
jumpers,
but
that
seems pretty unlilkely. I will maybe check 4.5X and 5X some other
time.

It's all pointless.
There is no cost nor time effective upgrade for that system.
$100 used box will run circles around it.

True but I can get it to do all the things I want to anyway now

Then why did you try to upgrade it?

Because I found out how to do those things after I tried to upgrade it.
I also expected the upgrade to make it do things faster.

No, it does not do all the things, because one of those
always-present parameters of use is the time/performance.

It can do all I want it to do at the moment.


as I have
a program to convert .wmv to mpg

What does that have to do with the system? Nothing.
The box is incredibly slow at video compression and a new
system would do it in less than 1/10th the time.

I think it would need to do it in about 1/20th of the time for it to
do it in real time.



and using lower resolution an no wallpaper
and a few other tricks, with the Cyrix clocked to M333 I can play to card
tables comfortably, average 75% cpu.


Average CPU is not what matters. It's whether the system
respondes well, fast enough during the brief moments when
100% CPU _IS_ called for. The average user does not have
their system always running at 100% either, but does
recognize the performance benefit of a faster system.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:51:43 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:47:09 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


I could try more RAM but the 64MB 72pin sticks are rare, none on
Ebay,
and usually pretty expensive on the rare occcasions there are.
Gonna give it a go a 4x. Fingers crossed :O)

Seems like it won't do 4X, came up as 2X, seems like maybe the chip
is 'throttled back', either that or it didn't detect one of the
jumpers,
but
that
seems pretty unlilkely. I will maybe check 4.5X and 5X some other
time.

It's all pointless.
There is no cost nor time effective upgrade for that system.
$100 used box will run circles around it.

True but I can get it to do all the things I want to anyway now

Then why did you try to upgrade it?
No, it does not do all the things, because one of those
always-present parameters of use is the time/performance.

as I have
a program to convert .wmv to mpg

What does that have to do with the system? Nothing.
The box is incredibly slow at video compression and a new
system would do it in less than 1/10th the time.


and using lower resolution an no wallpaper
and a few other tricks, with the Cyrix clocked to M333 I can play to card
tables comfortably, average 75% cpu.


Average CPU is not what matters. It's whether the system
respondes well, fast enough during the brief moments when
100% CPU _IS_ called for. The average user does not have
their system always running at 100% either,

I expect they do some of the time.

but does
recognize the performance benefit of a faster system.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:38:20 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


a program to convert .wmv to mpg

What does that have to do with the system? Nothing.
The box is incredibly slow at video compression and a new
system would do it in less than 1/10th the time.

I think it would need to do it in about 1/20th of the time for it to
do it in real time.

Well then, your system is even slower than I thought as I
have an 18 month old system that can, does do it, certainly
a new one can. If you're talking about only lower
resolution like 320 x 240, that P3 933(?) that you dismissed
might even be able to do it, providing it had SSE optimized
software/encoder.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:38:20 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


a program to convert .wmv to mpg

What does that have to do with the system? Nothing.
The box is incredibly slow at video compression and a new
system would do it in less than 1/10th the time.

I think it would need to do it in about 1/20th of the time for it to
do it in real time.

Well then, your system is even slower than I thought as I
have an 18 month old system that can, does do it, certainly
a new one can. If you're talking about only lower
resolution like 320 x 240, that P3 933(?) that you dismissed
might even be able to do it, providing it had SSE optimized
software/encoder.

Mine will play some others it won't play, some files seem to need
a collossal amount of processing.
Anyway I have a program to convert them to mpeg, only problem
is takes an age to convert, but I can do them as a batch job is I like.
I can't see the need for the format myself it uses to much CPU and
I think it would slow down a fairly modern system, especially if you
have other programs running.
Also its runs even slow in windows media player, which I no longer use
(cos its s***).

I tend to run my PC in just 256 colours now (cant tell the difference
most of the time) and it make a big difference. Switching to this
mode from high colour, whilst playing poker showed a drop from
about 90% CPU to 25%, which is like haveing a PC 3-4 times faster.

I was going to get my Athlon64 but unfortunately they seem to have
stopped doing the model I wanted and replaced it with a lot more
expenive models, however I might be better off with a Pentium anyway,
judging by the performance of the K6-2. A lot of benchmarks don't give
a true impression of general performance

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:56:14 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


Well then, your system is even slower than I thought as I
have an 18 month old system that can, does do it, certainly
a new one can. If you're talking about only lower
resolution like 320 x 240, that P3 933(?) that you dismissed
might even be able to do it, providing it had SSE optimized
software/encoder.

Mine will play some others it won't play, some files seem to need
a collossal amount of processing.
Anyway I have a program to convert them to mpeg, only problem
is takes an age to convert, but I can do them as a batch job is I like.
I can't see the need for the format myself it uses to much CPU and
I think it would slow down a fairly modern system, especially if you
have other programs running.
Also its runs even slow in windows media player, which I no longer use
(cos its s***).

Hardly. You simply need a faster system. The benefit of
the codecs that use more CPU time is either smaller
filesize, higher quality, or both. Modern systems have no
problem playing back any resolution your old box can, with
the more moden codecs AND doing other things simultaneously.



I tend to run my PC in just 256 colours now (cant tell the difference
most of the time) and it make a big difference. Switching to this
mode from high colour, whilst playing poker showed a drop from
about 90% CPU to 25%, which is like haveing a PC 3-4 times faster.

I was going to get my Athlon64 but unfortunately they seem to have
stopped doing the model I wanted and replaced it with a lot more
expenive models, however I might be better off with a Pentium anyway,
judging by the performance of the K6-2. A lot of benchmarks don't give
a true impression of general performance


Frankly the performance gain from ANY modern system is so
significant that being picky about exactly what it is, is
counter-productive.