I agree with you in that the L1 was increased but never did I hear that
logic at Best Buys, etc. in their sales pitch. They probably did not even
know that. But I did.

This discussion was on MMX vs non-MMX and not the L1 caches situation.

I considered it and the real world increase of less than 5% for $100~$200
and still stand by my decision/opinion. It was a nice try by intel to get
faster benchmarks for the unsuspecting customers and calling it an P MMX but
it did not work on us knowledgeable VARs who were looking out for the
customers and not for the profit.

I did not dismiss it. I only say, "Tell me how you are going to use your
puter and I will, based on real world not marketing hype, tell you which is
best for the buck." MMX vs non-MMX for $100~$200 rarely, very rarely was
appropriate.

That 5% can easily be made up and more in other areas at less than half the
cost of the MMX.

Daniel Wysocki
Twin*.*Star Computers
770-498-2582 /800-816-0663
[log in to unmask]
Fast - Reliable - Wallet Friendly


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Shaughnessy <[log in to unmask]>
To: PCSOFT - Personal Computer software discussion list
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, June 06, 1999 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PCSOFT] MMX Technology vs. Speed


>While this statement is true regarding the use of MMX - it is not true
>comparing an MMX chip to a non MMX chip of the same speed.  Intel doubled
>the L1 cache and also optimized other parts of the chip when the introduced
>the MMX line.  Therefore a 200 MHZ MMX chip IS faster for all applications
>than a 200 MHZ, non MMX chip.  Was the speed difference worth $100-200 at
>the time--maybe, but probably not.  I just don't think it's right to
>dismiss the MMX chips as you are doing here.
>
>

             Do you want to signoff PCSOFT or just change to
                    Digest mode - visit our web site:
                    http://nospin.com/pc/pcsoft.html