[rescue] Indy question

[Guy Yasko]

>>>>> "Joshua" == Joshua D Boyd <jdboyd at cs.millersville.edu> writes:

    Joshua> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:08:58PM -0500, Brian Hechinger
    Joshua> wrote:
    >> i'm thinking about picking an indy up on ebay for cheap. what
    >> CPU do i want it to have?  what are the options? what are the
    >> pros and cons for each cpu?  what is the fastest one?

    Joshua> No question, the r5k is the best indy cpu.  The only
    Joshua> question, is XL or XZ?

however, the r4400 200mhz doesn't do too poorly compared to the r5000
150mhz.  that being said, the r5000 runs much cooler, which is a plus
in an indy.  also, the r5000 machines were some of the last indies to
come out, so the infernal dallas timekeeper is less likely to be
kaput.  (anyone know when they stopped production on the indy?  i have
one that appears to have been manufactured in dec. 96, which seems
kind of late.)

    Joshua> The concensus seems to be that for general use, the XL is
    Joshua> best with the r5k, the XZ otherwise.

you'll want to check out ian mapleson's indy pages about this, because
the issue is pretty complicated.  if i remember correctly, i think
with large window sizes an r5000xz system may still beat the r5000+xl
combination because the r5000 doesn't have a z buffer.  i've tried to
play the blaster demo full screen on an r5000xl system, and it was
unbearably slow.  (this might have been the result of irix problems)
on the other hand, blaster runs fine on an r4400 200mhz xz indy.  (and
on an i2 maximpact, i can't score any points) obviously, this is all
academic if you don't care about 3d.  finally, for 2d, xl is faster,
and if you want to run an alternative os on your indy, you'll want the
xl.

g.y.

-- 
Guy Yasko -- gyasko at mx7.ttcn.ne.jp

Your CHEEKS sit like twin NECTARINES above a MOUTH that knows no BOUNDS --