Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (56748)	9/30/2001 2:39:37 PM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

tgptndr: Would it then be reasonable assume that testing CPUs should be done with crappy video cards?(To maximize the performance difference seen in the test.) Quite the contrary. If you use a crappy video board, any difference in CPU performance won't be apparent, since the video will be the definitive bottleneck. -fyo

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (56748)	9/30/2001 3:50:09 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

TGPTNDR, I don't think we are understanding this in the same way. I was trying to say that, despite my older video card and sub-1GHz processor, I am still able to get an enjoyable user experience from games such as Quake III. Some people here seem to be in search for the definitive benchmark that exactly matches the user experience, but I don't think they are going to find it where they are looking. On the other hand, measuring high frame rates in Quake III can still give you an idea about how well a given processor can run the optimized video and memory routines in the Quake III source. My point: Quake III is a poor benchmark to use to recreate an exact user experience, but it is a good benchmark to use for underscoring the strengths of a CPU's floating point and memory subsystems. wanna_bmw