AMD K6 vs. P3

[Crashman]

Why is it that AMD consistently has better floating point performance?

The K6-2 had consistently better floating-point performance than the PIII? On what planet? The FPU on K6-2 was so weak, even my enhanced K63-450 was beaten by a lowly Celeron 300A.

 

[Crashman]

Athlon was a great chip, K6 series was weak, that's why I made light of those idiots who sued AMD for spending too much money on Athlon development.

 

[apache_lives]

How to compare processor power between the AMD K6 @300mhz and Intel Pentium 3 @866mhz? Bpth the K6-2 and P3 have a 256k L2 cache.

Any rough guesses, that perhaps the P3 is about twice as fast as the K6? Are there any comparisons of processor power between the two CPUs at this site. (I have looked.)

any 128k (mendonino) celeron could wipe any K6 series cpu

 

[Crashman]

How to compare processor power between the AMD K6 @300mhz and Intel Pentium 3 @866mhz? Bpth the K6-2 and P3 have a 256k L2 cache.

Any rough guesses, that perhaps the P3 is about twice as fast as the K6? Are there any comparisons of processor power between the two CPUs at this site. (I have looked.)

any 128k (mendonino) celeron could wipe any K6 series cpu

Really? All my K6 series CPU's from 266MHz upwards stomped on Mendicinos in such awe-inspiring applications as Word and Excel!

 

[evilr00t]

Windows 98? Who uses Windows 98 anymore

 

[joefriday]

I used a 475 MHz K6-2 for years. It was roughly equivalent to the Pentium II family, and even half a notch behind that as I recall. The Pentium III architecture was definitely superior to any K6-2. I doubt you would want to use a K6-2 for anything in this day and age.

Hey, ouch....

I really like using my K6-2 system when I go back home. I mainly use it to surf the web on dial up internet, scan a few pictures with the Canoscan flatbed parallel port scanner, click OK on a few Windows fatal error messages, make up a word document, and print on the Canon BCJ 4300 parallel port printer (after I've went through 5 cleaning cycles first of course). It's really an excercise in nostalgia.

I've now got faster computers lying around that I could use, such as a Celeron 433, PII 450, Celeron 800, Slot A Athlon 900, or 2GHz Celeron, but to be honest, I like the old timey K6-2 best.

 

[apache_lives]

i love classic games, and the rig for em's gotta be classic too!

K6-III 400mhz
Gigabyte/ALi motherboard
128mb SDR Ram
2x4gb Fujitsu HDD's
3Dfx Voodoo1
Creative AWE32 (friggin big)

i think we all should agree, there all fcuking slow cpus

I used a 475 MHz K6-2 for years. It was roughly equivalent to the Pentium II family, and even half a notch behind that as I recall. The Pentium III architecture was definitely superior to any K6-2. I doubt you would want to use a K6-2 for anything in this day and age.

Hey, ouch....

I really like using my K6-2 system when I go back home. I mainly use it to surf the web on dial up internet, scan a few pictures with the Canoscan flatbed parallel port scanner, click OK on a few Windows fatal error messages, make up a word document, and print on the Canon BCJ 4300 parallel port printer (after I've went through 5 cleaning cycles first of course). It's really an excercise in nostalgia.

I've now got faster computers lying around that I could use, such as a Celeron 433, PII 450, Celeron 800, Slot A Athlon 900, or 2GHz Celeron, but to be honest, I like the old timey K6-2 best.

 

[GiDDY_SOUL]

The K6 Cpus were all Socket 7 CPUs with a maximum clock speed of 550mhz. These werent gud overclockers, but I saw some K6-III's overclocked to 800mhz with extreme cooling.
The best Cpu intel had for the Socket 7 was the Intel MMx 233.

On average a K6-III 500 Mhz was 3 times better than a Pentium MMX 233.

Its not even a fair comparison, the P-III wasnt a socket 7 CPU. I saw benchmarks where a K6-III 500 could beat a P-III 500Mhz! in some benchmarks. This is intresting cuz a K6 CPU without a socket change could beat a newer socket/P-III CPU in some application meanin roughly equal in performance? Some encoding benchmarks proves me wrong.

The benchmarks I saw were some game benchmarks long ago. & the P-III could b a lot better in some applications cuz they had SSE.

 

[gOJDO]

If you must know what I am smoking, then here: http://www.tomshardware.com/1999/02/23/new_cpus_from_amd_and_intel/page5.html

The rest of the review pretty much shows that in non-floating point tasks, the K6-3 is equal or faster than a Pentium III Katmai.

It's weird though. I read somewhere that the Pentium III was not to be the successor to the Pentium II, but the Athlon was trouncing everything so badly, they had to do it to save face.

You are a hardcore AMD fanboy troll!
The K6-3 is equal or faster than PIII-Katmai in only one benchmark in the article. In all other bencmarks, the K6-III 450 is slower than Celeron 400(Pentium 2)!
Are you blind or stupid?

AMD will definitely have a serious problem to place K6-3. Its Winstone performance would make it eligible to be promoted as a high-end processor, but this won't really work out as long as it performs worse than Celeron in most 3D-games. You can also still not really use it for 3D-rendering or other workstation-software, for those tasks the Celeron is the better and still cost effective choice also. One of the beauties about K6-3 is the fact that any K6-2-owner can drop it into his Super7-board, as long as the board provides enough current. However, this previous K6-2 owner may be disappointed by the 3D-gaming performance of K6-3, because he will find that in many cases it's hardly better than K6-2.

Go away troll and take your BS with you!

 

[m25]

I know, but the P3 got some edge until ~1GHz but in gaming it sometimes got blown away even by the modest durons.

 

[eggsmckenzy]

If you must know what I am smoking, then here: http://www.tomshardware.com/1999/02/23/new_cpus_from_amd_and_intel/page5.html

The rest of the review pretty much shows that in non-floating point tasks, the K6-3 is equal or faster than a Pentium III Katmai.

It's weird though. I read somewhere that the Pentium III was not to be the successor to the Pentium II, but the Athlon was trouncing everything so badly, they had to do it to save face.

You are a hardcore AMD fanboy troll!
The K6-3 is equal or faster than PIII-Katmai in only one benchmark in the article. In all other bencmarks, the K6-III 450 is slower than Celeron 400(Pentium 2)!
Are you blind or stupid?

AMD will definitely have a serious problem to place K6-3. Its Winstone performance would make it eligible to be promoted as a high-end processor, but this won't really work out as long as it performs worse than Celeron in most 3D-games. You can also still not really use it for 3D-rendering or other workstation-software, for those tasks the Celeron is the better and still cost effective choice also. One of the beauties about K6-3 is the fact that any K6-2-owner can drop it into his Super7-board, as long as the board provides enough current. However, this previous K6-2 owner may be disappointed by the 3D-gaming performance of K6-3, because he will find that in many cases it's hardly better than K6-2.

Go away troll and take your BS with you!

My Intel stock says otherwise.

The part that gets me though, is that you have the nerve to call me a troll, and ask if I am blind or stupid. It's no wonder, everyone that's a member of a reputable tech site outside of this site trusts Tomshardware about as much as the Inq. It's because of people like you.

Call me a fanboy if you want, but you'll just be making yourself look like a fool flinging insults at someone who you don't even know, and probably never will.

You're obviously a fanboy of being rude, and not posting intelligent replies, so I guess we're both fanboys.

If you really want to see me troll, I can easily do it, and probably be banned from here very quickly, but I won't resort to the level of stupidity you have shown on here by throwing around insults because you made an assumption.

I thought the K6-3 was better, and I've been proven wrong. Oh well, I'll take solace in that fact, and since I don't live in my mom's basement, I can take even more solace in the fact that I was proven wrong.

 

[ethel]

I thought the K6-3 was better, and I've been proven wrong. Oh well, I'll take solace in that fact, and since I don't live in my mom's basement, I can take even more solace in the fact that I was proven wrong.

*sigh*

Why do people always revert to the old "you're a sad git who lives in his mum's basement" insult if they've lost the technical argument?

I damn well like it down here and it's only damp in the winter FFS!!

 

[gOJDO]

My Intel stock says otherwise.

The part that gets me though, is that you have the nerve to call me a troll, and ask if I am blind or stupid. It's no wonder, everyone that's a member of a reputable tech site outside of this site trusts Tomshardware about as much as the Inq. It's because of people like you.

Eh? Excuse me....the_INQ is full of BS. Don't ever compare THG with the_INQ!
I hate BS and this is a clear example of BS:

The rest of the review pretty much shows that in non-floating point tasks, the K6-3 is equal or faster than a Pentium III Katmai.

As everybody can notice on the graphs, the rest of the review pretty much shows that in everything the Celeron 400 (P2) outperfroms the K6-3 450!
The conclusion of the review:

AMD will have to go through a hard time until the release of K7. The K6-3 is not that much of a great product as many of us were hoping for. Office performance alone doesn't really amaze any of us anymore, the 3D-performance is at least as important. As long as Celeron runs 3D-games and even high-end applications faster than K6-3, AMD can hardly ask for a higher price than what Intel takes for Celeron. This puts AMD into a horrible situation. K6-3 will be significantly more expensive to produce than K6-2, it has more than double the amount of transistors, but K6-3 can not possibly be any more expensive than K6-2 if anyone is supposed to buy it. Celeron's low pricing is a serious threat to K6-3 sales so that it's very questionable if AMD will make any profit until the release of K7. K7 will most likely have to face 'Coppermine' rather than Pentium III's current 'Katmai'-core, so that even this promising processor will have a very hard time at its release date mid 1999.

Call me a fanboy if you want, but you'll just be making yourself look like a fool flinging insults at someone who you don't even know, and probably never will.

The truth hurts and I hate trolls.

You're obviously a fanboy of being rude, and not posting intelligent replies, so I guess we're both fanboys.

And you are obviously a fanboy of posting BS, so keep guessing.

If you really want to see me troll, I can easily do it, and probably be banned from here very quickly, but I won't resort to the level of stupidity you have shown on here by throwing around insults because you made an assumption.

Why do you think that anyone will ban you because of your stupidity or AMD fanboyism?
We allready have trolls and clowns heer. Feel free to join the HORDE.

I thought the K6-3 was better, and I've been proven wrong.

There is a huge difference between thinking and posting BS and lieing.

Oh well, I'll take solace in that fact, and since I don't live in my mom's basement, I can take even more solace in the fact that I was proven wrong.

good for you.

 

[eggsmckenzy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't horde what your mom used to do? Or am I thinking of whored?

 

[dasickninja]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't horde what your mom used to do? Or am I thinking of whored?

Can't you two stop?

 

[apache_lives]

I know, but the P3 got some edge until ~1GHz but in gaming it sometimes got blown away even by the modest durons.

i wonder if fanboys remember who broke the ghz barrier and exceeded it first...

 

[apache_lives]

The K6 Cpus were all Socket 7 CPUs with a maximum clock speed of 550mhz. These werent gud overclockers, but I saw some K6-III's overclocked to 800mhz with extreme cooling.
The best Cpu intel had for the Socket 7 was the Intel MMx 233.

On average a K6-III 500 Mhz was 3 times better than a Pentium MMX 233.

Its not even a fair comparison, the P-III wasnt a socket 7 CPU. I saw benchmarks where a K6-III 500 could beat a P-III 500Mhz! in some benchmarks. This is intresting cuz a K6 CPU without a socket change could beat a newer socket/P-III CPU in some application meanin roughly equal in performance? Some encoding benchmarks proves me wrong.

The benchmarks I saw were some game benchmarks long ago. & the P-III could b a lot better in some applications cuz they had SSE.

who cares bout sockets! they were both out at the same time to compete

SSE did nothing if apps didnt know how to use it, and besides, AMD HAD 3D NOW

face it the K6 was crap, the K7 was far better (socket A versions)

 

[gOJDO]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't horde what your mom used to do? Or am I thinking of whored?

I am not paid to correct your stupidity. HORDE is the crew of idiots where you will fit perfectly.
Try some harder if you really want to insult me. You'll have to hit the truth if you want the insult to be effective.

 

[gOJDO]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't horde what your mom used to do? Or am I thinking of whored?

Can't you two stop?
I can't. It is up to eggsxgjsdkj

 

[ethel]

Can't we call it a draw?

 

[m25]

I know, but the P3 got some edge until ~1GHz but in gaming it sometimes got blown away even by the modest durons.

i wonder if fanboys remember who broke the ghz barrier and exceeded it first...
It was an athlon if I'm not wrong.

 

[gOJDO]

K7 Athlon Thunderbird 1GHz, 03.06.2000

 

[apache_lives]

I know, but the P3 got some edge until ~1GHz but in gaming it sometimes got blown away even by the modest durons.

i wonder if fanboys remember who broke the ghz barrier and exceeded it first...
It was an athlon if I'm not wrong.

spot on my friend :lol:

and whats really funny now is amds clock speeds with 90nm were catching up with P4! (2.8 Pentium D as the intro model dual core, amds highest end cpus are running at that speed!)

 

[runswindows95]

Actually, that's why the Pentium 4 was launched and we had the beginnings of the Ghz War. Before the Pentium 4 was launched, Intel's fastest chip on the market was the 1Ghz Pentium 3. The 1.13Ghz Pentium 3 was a disaster. So, they launched the Pentium 4 at 1.3Ghz so they would have a "faster" CPU than AMD's 1.2Ghz Athlon.

I would keep the history lesson going, but it's 4am and I haven't had any sleep.

 

[enforcer22]

I don't think the old AMD K6 had much performance compared to the P3. Back then I think, Intel was the company to stick with. That is until AMD unleashed the K7.

Try Google for a K6 review, I'm sure you find plenty of reviews.

Screw that k6-2 300 and mobo for $80

p-II 300 no mobo $300 or so.

was simple since the difference was so marginal.

but yeah motherof all cpu charts