• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Intel vs AMD DX4/100

B

bobba84

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
560
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Hi guys,

I have an AMD 486 DX4/100 machine I use for retro gaming.

I recently purchased an Intel 486 DX4/100 CPU for $2. It had bent pins as it had been in the bottom of a box if ISA cards for quite some time, so I don't know if it works.

My question is - does anybody know if there is a noticeable performance difference between the two? Is it worth changing it over? Or should I just leave my 486 alone?

Thanks!
Bobby.
 
I think the AMD 486-100 has only 8kb of L1 cache and the Intel virgin has 16kb
its enough to make a performing differing so I would give it A ty
 
The AM486 comes in both 8k and 16k cache configurations, it's the Intel that only comes in a 8k configuration.

AMD matched the i486 clock for clock, so if it's a 8k AMD it's going to be zero difference, if it's a 16k one the intel is gonna be a downgrade.

Check your AMD's model numbers:

8k:
AMD A80486DX4-100NV8T
AMD A80486DX4-100SV8B

16k:
AMD Am486DX4-100V16BGC
AMD Am486DX4-100SV16BGI

Kind of a laugh, if you have one of the 16k AM486 DX/4-100's, it's actually faster than the 120 at some tasks as they never made a 120 with 16k of cache. There's also the 'enhanced' versions of the AMD's that allow for write-back instead of write-through caching, which can be even faster.

Though if you actually want something faster, get the Am586 133, set it for clock tripling and feed it 50mhz, for a rock solid stable 150 mhz in the same socket. Gives about the same performance as a P90. That's what I'm running for my "middling" Win98 box, which for even more fun has 512k of EDO in it. (which feels ridiculous in a 486 mobo). It's stable at that speed because it was originally designed for it, but not labelled as such (except for a handful of very rare examples) because not enough motherboards supported the 50mhz FSB, and people were bitching about not being able to use it at the higher speed.

Bottom line though, the AMD will be equal or faster than its Intel counterpart at 100mhz, not the other way around.
 
deathshadow said:
The AM486 comes in both 8k and 16k cache configurations, it's the Intel that only comes in a 8k configuration.
Click to expand...

Not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_DX4
The IntelDX4 is a clock-tripled i486 microprocessor with 16 kB L1 cache
Click to expand...
That said I had forgotten that some AMD models had 16K because I only have ever had 8K AMD chips.
So check to see if your AMD chip is 8K or 16K

I see a really goofed on that post above. I typed it on my new rooted nook. Still getting used to the tiny keyboard and slow response of the screen. Combine that with autocorrect
and its a mess. I have a love/hate relationship with autocorrect
 
smeezekitty said:
Intel still shows a slight edge: http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=28470
Click to expand...

That comparison is for the Intel with 16kB of cache versus the AMD with 8kB of cache. The AMD's marked with a WB are the 16kB version and perform about the same. Looking at the PDF version of all the tests shows some tests that AMD handily wins making up for the slight weakness of the ALU and FPU.
 
But consider it is very possible the OP has an 8K version of the AMD chip

I'd still prefer to have more cache over WB cache. Especially if you use newer (more memory intensive) OSes/programs
 
I would prefer more cache too. Certain tasks are about twice as fast on AMD as Intel. If those tasks matter to the user, then one should pick up the AMD chip. If ALU performance is critical, pick the Intel which is about 10% faster. For most users, the chips are so close that swapping between 486-100 won't matter.
 
The key question for me would be "Would I be likely to notice it?" To paraphrase Mark Twain (and others), "There are lies, damned lies and benchmarks."
 
Chuck(G) said:
The key question for me would be "Would I be likely to notice it?" To paraphrase Mark Twain (and others), "There are lies, damned lies and benchmarks."
Click to expand...
I'd say you hit the nail on the head. Too many benchmarks are absolutely meaningless when it comes to the human eye, ear and of course brain, pun intended. :)
 
I encourage everyone to check the breakdown of benchmarks. All the 486 designs have similar performance at the same clock speed. With some of the Pentium competitors, two roughly equal overall chips could have radically different performance depending on task. Buy the wrong one and spreadsheets take twice as long to recalculate.
 
Thanks for the input guys. I'm not sure whether I have the 8 or 16kb cache model AMD. I figured from what you guys said and what I've read that the performance won't be worth it for me to pull it apart and figure out the damn mess of jumper settings this board has to try it. :)

Bobby.
 
Until I am proven wrong, I am going to say that all Intel DX4s had 16kb cache...even the 75MHz models. The AMD CPUs were usually 8kb L1, except for some of the very latest models which were 16kb. Both Intel and AMD DX4s were available with either write back or write through cache.
However, from what I understand the Intel DX4 was more than just a clock tripled 486 and was enhanced in some ways.
From what I have seen, if we are strictly comparing WB versions with 16kb the Intel still wins. Benchmarks I've seen place it closer to the AMD 5x86-133.
 
I can only speak for games: My tests showed that the Intel DX4 is faster, clock for clock, than the AMD 5x86-P75. Performance is very close, so it shouldn't matter. However I found that more boards support the Intel. E.g. my Acer motherboard detects the Intel fine, the AMD shows up as a DX2-80.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top