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