I am not too sure what they mean in 'real life'.
What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
which I curently have problems with.
Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?
Currently is struggles if the game is being played quickly and
it is hard to switch to the other table.
It is always at 100% CPU on two tables, ~50-80% on one
table (sometimes a bit lower if from a fresh boot and without
opening explorer).
I would say I will see a noticible immprovement anyway I hope.
My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!
"Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:YUrJe.22874$Oe4.1974@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
>
> Cyrix MII
AMD
> K6-2
> Benchmark name CPU 1 CPU 2
> Dhrystone 2.1 (VAX MIPS) 172.64 348.92 ( 102.1%)
> Whetstone (KWIPS) 70.48 113.81 (
61.5%)
> Linpack 100x100 (MFLOPS) 23.79 35.86 ( 50.7%)
> Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) 624 635 (
1.8%)
> Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) 181 359 ( 98.3%)
> Sandra MultiMedia Integer (it/s) 620 1678 (
170.6%)
> Sandra MultiMedia Floating Point (it/s) 129 2054 ( 1492.2%)
> Doom 1.9s high detail (FPS) 60.97 86.45 (
41.8%)
> Doom 1.9s low detail (FPS) 102.74 135.68 (
32.1%)
>
> I am not too sure what they mean in 'real life'.
> What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
> which I curently have problems with.
> Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?
> Currently is struggles if the game is being played quickly and
> it is hard to switch to the other table.
> It is always at 100% CPU on two tables, ~50-80% on one
> table (sometimes a bit lower if from a fresh boot and without
> opening explorer).
> I would say I will see a noticible immprovement anyway I hope.
>
> My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
> Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
> A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:54:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> Cyrix MII AMD
>K6-2
<snip>
)
>
>I am not too sure what they mean in 'real life'.
In real life they mean that all this time you're spending
would be best put towards semi-modern parts instead of
towards an old platform which (IIRC) only has 64MB cachable
limit on Fastpage or EDO memory.
>What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
>which I curently have problems with.
Unknown. It will be "more likely" to play them ok, since
there was a small performance increase. That's no
guarantee, only that they come closer to the goal.
Why ask instead of just trying it?
>Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?
Where was the bottleneck?
Your entire system is relatively slow even by 8-year-old
system standards. I'm not trying to urge you to spend $400
for a box to play online poker but to be realistic, you're
spending hours on something that will have quite diminishing
return.
>Currently is struggles if the game is being played quickly and
>it is hard to switch to the other table.
Google for some software that monitors CPU utilization and
note if it's a bottleneck during gaming.
>It is always at 100% CPU on two tables, ~50-80% on one
>table (sometimes a bit lower if from a fresh boot and without
>opening explorer).
>I would say I will see a noticible immprovement anyway I hope.
>
>My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
>Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
>A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!
Consider the time spent. Someone might grow their own
grains and brew their own beer if time were to be ignored.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:7kqcf1h86djd43ijt94s0ma5qij8hi5cjd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:54:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cyrix MII
AMD
> >K6-2
>
> <snip>
> )
> >
> >I am not too sure what they mean in 'real life'.
>
> In real life they mean that all this time you're spending
> would be best put towards semi-modern parts instead of
> towards an old platform which (IIRC) only has 64MB cachable
> limit on Fastpage or EDO memory.
Not sure what u mean by than, it currently has 128MB of EDO
memory in it, maximum is 256MB but the 4 X 64MB simms
are very rare.
>
> >What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
> >which I curently have problems with.
>
> Unknown. It will be "more likely" to play them ok, since
> there was a small performance increase. That's no
> guarantee, only that they come closer to the goal.
> Why ask instead of just trying it?
Well I have not recieved the processor yet, I paypalled for
it today so hopefull I will have it early next week.
>
> >Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?
>
> Where was the bottleneck?
Not entirely sure, although it does go to 100% CPU
however I am a little unsure why because the 'graphics'
are pretty minimal compares to a proper modern
'shoot em up' video intensive game. Also there is a 'dealers'
voice which my use some CPU.
I really don't see why it should be so slow with two tables,
but it almost seems to lock up at times which is rather worrying
if you have a few quid in a £20 pot as you only get about 20
seconds to play and if you time out you automatically fold
your cards. This doesn't usually happen, it more likely you
miss your turn on a new hand which costs you nothing.
Its rare to get two 'playable' hands anyway and I take care
get out of a game I have no chance of winning if I look like
winning a big pot on the other table.
> Your entire system is relatively slow even by 8-year-old
> system standards. I'm not trying to urge you to spend $400
> for a box to play online poker but to be realistic, you're
> spending hours on something that will have quite diminishing
> return.
Well I will be getting a new system as well, however I see no harm
in 'maxing out' the system I have to make it more useable.
I am planning on spending £400-£500 on it ($800-$1000??).
>
> >Currently is struggles if the game is being played quickly and
> >it is hard to switch to the other table.
>
> Google for some software that monitors CPU utilization and
> note if it's a bottleneck during gaming.
>
> >It is always at 100% CPU on two tables, ~50-80% on one
> >table (sometimes a bit lower if from a fresh boot and without
> >opening explorer).
> >I would say I will see a noticible immprovement anyway I hope.
> >
> >My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
> >Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
> >A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!
>
> Consider the time spent. Someone might grow their own
> grains and brew their own beer if time were to be ignored.
I don't mind the time spent as I have learned quite a bit and I
have much more confidence with the hardware now, jobs
which seemed daunting as realitively simple second time around.
Anyhow if get upto 14 time better multimedia/graphics the
benchmarks show I will be more than happy.
I guessI will find out whrn the chip is delivevred.
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:43:42 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> In real life they mean that all this time you're spending
>> would be best put towards semi-modern parts instead of
>> towards an old platform which (IIRC) only has 64MB cachable
>> limit on Fastpage or EDO memory.
>
>Not sure what u mean by than, it currently has 128MB of EDO
>memory in it, maximum is 256MB but the 4 X 64MB simms
>are very rare.
Many socket 7 chipsets had a cachable memory limitation due
to the tag ram for the l2 cache. You'd have to investigate
your chipset and motherboard to determine this possibility.
>
>>
>> >What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
>> >which I curently have problems with.
>>
>> Unknown. It will be "more likely" to play them ok, since
>> there was a small performance increase. That's no
>> guarantee, only that they come closer to the goal.
>> Why ask instead of just trying it?
>
>Well I have not recieved the processor yet, I paypalled for
>it today so hopefull I will have it early next week.
It's not a bad deal to upgrade the box for a buck if you
need it faster, but at the same time putting hopes on such
an old box is kind of like buying 5 lottery tickets for a
$20 jackpot... even if you win the payout is low.
>
>>
>> >Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?
>>
>> Where was the bottleneck?
>
>Not entirely sure, although it does go to 100% CPU
>however I am a little unsure why because the 'graphics'
>are pretty minimal compares to a proper modern
>'shoot em up' video intensive game. Also there is a 'dealers'
>voice which my use some CPU.
>I really don't see why it should be so slow with two tables,
>but it almost seems to lock up at times which is rather worrying
>if you have a few quid in a £20 pot as you only get about 20
>seconds to play and if you time out you automatically fold
>your cards. This doesn't usually happen, it more likely you
>miss your turn on a new hand which costs you nothing.
>Its rare to get two 'playable' hands anyway and I take care
>get out of a game I have no chance of winning if I look like
>winning a big pot on the other table.
>
It would be much easier to just get a more modern system.
Newer systems are being thrown away, it's all a matter of
looking for them if you want something as cheap as possible.
>
>> Your entire system is relatively slow even by 8-year-old
>> system standards. I'm not trying to urge you to spend $400
>> for a box to play online poker but to be realistic, you're
>> spending hours on something that will have quite diminishing
>> return.
>
>Well I will be getting a new system as well, however I see no harm
>in 'maxing out' the system I have to make it more useable.
>I am planning on spending £400-£500 on it ($800-$1000??).
Perhaps no harm, but if it'll be replaced anyway then was
there any real benefit? Part of my point is that your CPU
"might" be the primary bottleneck for the one described use,
but even if it were, the memory, video, and (presumably,
unless you'd added a drive controller card) the hard drive
are all quite slow too. It seems there was a certain point
of system performance necessary to be able to do the basic
things without any lags, and IMO, you're still a little
below that level even after the CPU upgrade.
>> Consider the time spent. Someone might grow their own
>> grains and brew their own beer if time were to be ignored.
>
>I don't mind the time spent as I have learned quite a bit and I
>have much more confidence with the hardware now, jobs
>which seemed daunting as realitively simple second time around.
Yes learning is good, but think of how much better if the
details of it were more applicable to more modern systems.
>
>Anyhow if get upto 14 time better multimedia/graphics the
>benchmarks show I will be more than happy.
>
>I guessI will find out whrn the chip is delivevred.
>
14 times better? Floating point performance will be better
but the more simple a benchmark, the more deceiving the
reported performance difference because it doesn't factor in
the other system bottlenecks, areas which do not improve by
only changing the CPU.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:fe2df19mobqj5pjajhceadce125c5rpl7l@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:43:42 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> In real life they mean that all this time you're spending
> >> would be best put towards semi-modern parts instead of
> >> towards an old platform which (IIRC) only has 64MB cachable
> >> limit on Fastpage or EDO memory.
> >
> >Not sure what u mean by than, it currently has 128MB of EDO
> >memory in it, maximum is 256MB but the 4 X 64MB simms
> >are very rare.
>
> Many socket 7 chipsets had a cachable memory limitation due
> to the tag ram for the l2 cache. You'd have to investigate
> your chipset and motherboard to determine this possibility.
Not sure what that means 'tag ram'?
Manual says 0-512KB cache.
Could I deduce form this statement
"Many modern PCs, for example, are configured with a 256K L2 cache
and tag RAM that is 8 bits wide. This is sufficient for caching up to 64 MB
of main memory."
That I have 128 MB?
Euther way the more memory the merrier.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
> >> >which I curently have problems with.
> >>
> >> Unknown. It will be "more likely" to play them ok, since
> >> there was a small performance increase. That's no
> >> guarantee, only that they come closer to the goal.
> >> Why ask instead of just trying it?
> >
> >Well I have not recieved the processor yet, I paypalled for
> >it today so hopefull I will have it early next week.
>
> It's not a bad deal to upgrade the box for a buck if you
> need it faster, but at the same time putting hopes on such
> an old box is kind of like buying 5 lottery tickets for a
> $20 jackpot... even if you win the payout is low.
Well if it works it will be money well spent, I imagine I will have
to buy some thermal compound which will cost twice as much as
the processor, which is shocking!! Doubling the speed for $3
just has to be worth it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?
> >>
> >> Where was the bottleneck?
> >
> >Not entirely sure, although it does go to 100% CPU
> >however I am a little unsure why because the 'graphics'
> >are pretty minimal compares to a proper modern
> >'shoot em up' video intensive game. Also there is a 'dealers'
> >voice which my use some CPU.
> >I really don't see why it should be so slow with two tables,
> >but it almost seems to lock up at times which is rather worrying
> >if you have a few quid in a £20 pot as you only get about 20
> >seconds to play and if you time out you automatically fold
> >your cards. This doesn't usually happen, it more likely you
> >miss your turn on a new hand which costs you nothing.
> >Its rare to get two 'playable' hands anyway and I take care
> >get out of a game I have no chance of winning if I look like
> >winning a big pot on the other table.
> >
>
> It would be much easier to just get a more modern system.
> Newer systems are being thrown away, it's all a matter of
> looking for them if you want something as cheap as possible.
Maybe but I will still have this system which is probably unsellable
so I may as well make the most of it.
>
>
> >
> >> Your entire system is relatively slow even by 8-year-old
> >> system standards. I'm not trying to urge you to spend $400
> >> for a box to play online poker but to be realistic, you're
> >> spending hours on something that will have quite diminishing
> >> return.
> >
> >Well I will be getting a new system as well, however I see no harm
> >in 'maxing out' the system I have to make it more useable.
> >I am planning on spending £400-£500 on it ($800-$1000??).
>
> Perhaps no harm, but if it'll be replaced anyway then was
> there any real benefit? Part of my point is that your CPU
> "might" be the primary bottleneck for the one described use,
> but even if it were, the memory, video, and (presumably,
> unless you'd added a drive controller card) the hard drive
> are all quite slow too. It seems there was a certain point
> of system performance necessary to be able to do the basic
> things without any lags, and IMO, you're still a little
> below that level even after the CPU upgrade.
Well I will find that out next week, apart from anything else
it will be interesting to see what effect the new processor has.
In one benchmark it is a staggering 1492.2% in another a miniscule
1.8%. It seems to be in the graphical/multimedia area where the
bottle neck is, perhaps, and that is the area which shows the
greatest improvements.
>
>
>
> >> Consider the time spent. Someone might grow their own
> >> grains and brew their own beer if time were to be ignored.
> >
> >I don't mind the time spent as I have learned quite a bit and I
> >have much more confidence with the hardware now, jobs
> >which seemed daunting as realitively simple second time around.
>
> Yes learning is good, but think of how much better if the
> details of it were more applicable to more modern systems.
>
Well some knowledge is transferable and I would rather fry this
heap of junk than a new system :O)
>
> >
> >Anyhow if get upto 14 time better multimedia/graphics the
> >benchmarks show I will be more than happy.
> >
> >I guessI will find out whrn the chip is delivevred.
> >
>
> 14 times better? Floating point performance will be better
> but the more simple a benchmark, the more deceiving the
> reported performance difference because it doesn't factor in
> the other system bottlenecks, areas which do not improve by
> only changing the CPU.
Well I don't expect get anywhere near 14X in reality but it might
just be enough to do some of the things my system curently struggles
with. For example it is just not quick enough to play some .wmv
files, I have to convert them to .mpeg with TMPGEnc, the only
free program I could find, but that takes ages, upto and over an hour.
Anyway it will be interesting to see what effect it has and I hope to
do some 'benchmark tests' myself before I try the new CPU out.
I am much encouraged by this comment from a recent post in this
group "2000: AMD K6/2 333 mhz system from Medialand Systems
in Concord. I loved this PC (blazingly fast compared to the Cyrix)"
Of course that was a completely new system and I will be happy if
it is half "blazingly fast " :O)
>Could I deduce form this statement
>"Many modern PCs, for example, are configured with a 256K L2 cache
>and tag RAM that is 8 bits wide. This is sufficient for caching up to 64 MB
>of main memory."
>That I have 128 MB?
No you cannot determine it from that statement. However, it
is still possible that your cacheable limit is 128MB.
Google for "tag ram cacheable limits" and apply it to the
chipset and tag ram on your particular board.
"Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:YUrJe.22874$Oe4.1974@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
> Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
> A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!
An excellent price, but I wouldn't drink that beer - its was openned about 5
years ago. It is long since gone flat and someone has stubbed out a
cigarette in it! Still a good price - however a CPU on its own won't do
anything - you need a few more parts yet before you can call it a computer!
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:2kddf1pf4mvt212rk3drlu66rb9ipvi217@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:21:00 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Not sure what that means 'tag ram'?
> >Manual says 0-512KB cache.
>
> Google search for the cachable limit for your motherboard
> and it's chipset. There might be help here,
> http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=155
>
> >Could I deduce form this statement
> >"Many modern PCs, for example, are configured with a 256K L2 cache
> >and tag RAM that is 8 bits wide. This is sufficient for caching up to 64
MB
> >of main memory."
> >That I have 128 MB?
>
> No you cannot determine it from that statement. However, it
> is still possible that your cacheable limit is 128MB.
Indeed it is according to your link (SiS/5598 Chipset).
>
> Google for "tag ram cacheable limits" and apply it to the
> chipset and tag ram on your particular board.
>
>
I assume the poker game uses flash graphics? Flash is typically high on
processor demands, particularly for graphics with lots of detail.
Sometimes right mouse button on the flash part lets you set quality to low,
which can speed things up lots. Also making sure there isn't any more flash
displaying on web pages or unnecessary
things running can help.
I would imagine faster processor upgrade would make things noticably better,
obviously!
-JP
"JP" <johnpaul_green@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4EPJe.5462$jv2.5310@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> I assume the poker game uses flash graphics? Flash is typically high on
> processor demands, particularly for graphics with lots of detail.
> Sometimes right mouse button on the flash part lets you set quality to
low,
> which can speed things up lots.
That doesn't seem to work, so it may not use 'Flash' graphics just
'flashy' graphics (same thing I guess) however that gave me the idea
of changing to 256 colours from 16 bit colour, which did seem to have
a noticable effect, the CPU usage seemed to drop from about 80% for
one game, to about 50% or less. It's still almost 100% for two games
but it does seem a lot more responsive. I then tried changing back
to 16 bit colour however the colours on the the poker game stayed
in 256 colours.
It doesn't look quite as good in 256 colours but as long as I can see what
is
happening that doesn't matter. Also it might work even better with a reboot
when I switch colours (which is an option).
I was not actually playing at the tables when I tested, just watching so I
will have to try a live test later. Also I normally play from a fresh reboot
which seems to help as I have/had several explorer windows open and OE
as I did the test.
I am not sure if playing too tables is better though, you get more choice of
hands to play but its much harder to get a 'feel' for the players at the
table
(although sometimes that ain't a bad thing, as some can be very deceptive!!)
But thanks for that idea.
> Also making sure there isn't any more flash
> displaying on web pages or unnecessary
> things running can help.
> I would imagine faster processor upgrade would make things noticably
better,
> obviously!
"Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:czRJe.13446$n97.6058@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "JP" <johnpaul_green@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4EPJe.5462$jv2.5310@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> > I assume the poker game uses flash graphics? Flash is typically high on
> > processor demands, particularly for graphics with lots of detail.
> > Sometimes right mouse button on the flash part lets you set quality to
> low,
> > which can speed things up lots.
>
> That doesn't seem to work, so it may not use 'Flash' graphics just
> 'flashy' graphics (same thing I guess) however that gave me the idea
> of changing to 256 colours from 16 bit colour, which did seem to have
> a noticable effect, the CPU usage seemed to drop from about 80% for
> one game, to about 50% or less. It's still almost 100% for two games
> but it does seem a lot more responsive. I then tried changing back
> to 16 bit colour however the colours on the the poker game stayed
> in 256 colours.
> It doesn't look quite as good in 256 colours but as long as I can see what
> is
> happening that doesn't matter. Also it might work even better with a
reboot
> when I switch colours (which is an option).
> I was not actually playing at the tables when I tested, just watching so I
> will have to try a live test later. Also I normally play from a fresh
reboot
> which seems to help as I have/had several explorer windows open and OE
> as I did the test.
> I am not sure if playing too tables is better though, you get more choice
of
> hands to play but its much harder to get a 'feel' for the players at the
> table
> (although sometimes that ain't a bad thing, as some can be very
deceptive!!)
> But thanks for that idea.
>
> > Also making sure there isn't any more flash
> > displaying on web pages or unnecessary
> > things running can help.
>
>
> > I would imagine faster processor upgrade would make things noticably
> better,
> > obviously!
>
> Well let's ****ing hope so :O)
Yes lowering the resolution works wonders even when playing at
the table, the £38 I won last night is testemant to that.
Might just be luck though ;O)
Anyway I could switch tables with easy, a major problem before.
Anyway my new processor has arrived but I am going to try and
do some benchmarks so I can measure any performance increase.
>
> > -JP
> >
> >
>
>
"Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:NgtJe.32730$Ag3.4123@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:YUrJe.22874$Oe4.1974@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> >
> > Cyrix MII
> AMD
> > K6-2
> > Benchmark name CPU 1 CPU 2
> > Dhrystone 2.1 (VAX MIPS) 172.64 348.92 ( 102.1%)
> > Whetstone (KWIPS) 70.48 113.81 (
> 61.5%)
> > Linpack 100x100 (MFLOPS) 23.79 35.86 ( 50.7%)
> > Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) 624 635 (
> 1.8%)
> > Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) 181 359 (
98.3%)
> > Sandra MultiMedia Integer (it/s) 620 1678 (
> 170.6%)
> > Sandra MultiMedia Floating Point (it/s) 129 2054 (
1492.2%)
> > Doom 1.9s high detail (FPS) 60.97 86.45 (
> 41.8%)
> > Doom 1.9s low detail (FPS) 102.74 135.68 (
> 32.1%)
> >
> > I am not too sure what they mean in 'real life'.
> > What does it all mean? Will it play somoe video (.wmv .avi)
> > which I curently have problems with.
> > Will I be able to play online poker on two tables easier?
> > Currently is struggles if the game is being played quickly and
> > it is hard to switch to the other table.
> > It is always at 100% CPU on two tables, ~50-80% on one
> > table (sometimes a bit lower if from a fresh boot and without
> > opening explorer).
> > I would say I will see a noticible immprovement anyway I hope.
> >
> > My new AMD K6-2 processor cost me the princely sum of 99 pence!!
> > Thats £1.45 including postage :O)
> > A new computer for less than the cost of a pint of beer!!
>
> Reformatted
> >
A new computer for less than a pint of beer, or is it a years old useless
piece of hardware for less than a pint of beer.
Expaiin these benchmarks!!! 
Linear Mode
