AMD K6/2 faster than a 933MHz Pentium II?

Like as if you could have just replaced that CPU anyway. Bit hard from
socket 7 to socket 370 or something??? lol.
I'd say one had everything "onboard" & 64megs of ram while the AMD had all
cards & full house of mem??



"kony" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:34:27 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:

Further, insufficient detail is given about the testing
scenario. We could assume they attempted to provide a fair
gaming benchmark by reusing the same video card, which would
be relatively older (slower) than the average card on a P3
box.

Well whatever the case it is a bit shocking that it is actually slower!!

Not at all, it goes back to what I've alreay written, that
you cannot just install a different CPU and expect the other
deficiencies in a system to no longer be bottlenecks, in
fact the extent to which they're bottlenecks will be even
more significant.


I wouldn't be to happy if I had upgraded my CPU to play 'Doom'
(I assume it's a game) only to find it was slower!!

Your system will be significantly slower than any in the
comparison at Doom no matter what CPU you have in it.



I think you will find young children are more demanding of a system than
I am!! Fancy graphics don't impress me much, space invaders is about
as good as a computer game gets.

I was thinking of very young children, having no idea how to
use a computer and just having something to peck at on a
keyboard and learn to use a mouse.

Donald McTrevor wrote:

" I don't think the benchmarks are wrong because if they are they must
have got a whole series of them wrong, here the PIII 700 is also slower.
I think the truth is the K6-2 is a great processor which punches above
it weight in some applications. "


How about these benchmarks?
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/1999...eleron-07.html

They show the K6-2/300 being battered by everything else on the list,
and it only includes processors up to the Pentium II 450. Trying to
claim that your K6-2/300 is faster than a Pentium III 933 is a joke.
It's safe to assume that the website you refer to ****ed up big time
with their tests.

"Cuzman" wrote in message
...
Donald McTrevor wrote:

" I don't think the benchmarks are wrong because if they are they must
have got a whole series of them wrong, here the PIII 700 is also slower.
I think the truth is the K6-2 is a great processor which punches above
it weight in some applications. "


How about these benchmarks?
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/1999...eleron-07.html

They show the K6-2/300 being battered by everything else on the list,
and it only includes processors up to the Pentium II 450. Trying to
claim that your K6-2/300 is faster than a Pentium III 933 is a joke.
It's safe to assume that the website you refer to ****ed up big time
with their tests.

Maybe they did, maybe Tom's hardware got it wrong, either way
I will found out soon when I replace my Cyrix MII 300 which
unfortunately does not feature in Toms tests.

Also I believe CPU's can me made to 'target' certain benchmarks.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:41:35 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


Maybe they did, maybe Tom's hardware got it wrong, either way
I will found out soon when I replace my Cyrix MII 300 which
unfortunately does not feature in Toms tests.

There is no "maybe" too it. These are old technologies so
we have the luxury of hindsight. Many of use have (or still
do) own a few systems with their processors and can be
certain of how much slower the K6-2 is at everything, but
again this is only considering (every parameter of) CPU
performance, not performance of a motherboard chipset or
video card or (other bottleneck).


Also I believe CPU's can me made to 'target' certain benchmarks.

Because they have different architectures, indeed any given
CPU will be faster at some task than others. However, some
things remain constant. For example, the lack of L2 cache
on a K6-2 makes it always slower than K6-3 at same MHz
speed, same FSB. K6-3 is never as fast as a P3 either, not
in any benchmark that leaves the CPU as a significant
bottleneck. There is nothing that I'm aware of that any
K6-2 can do even 70% as fast as the P3 in the linked
article.

Benchmarks are only as good as the subsystems they're
stressing. You wouldn't use a benchmark for monitor
response time to gauge CPU peformance either.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:41:35 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


Maybe they did, maybe Tom's hardware got it wrong, either way
I will found out soon when I replace my Cyrix MII 300 which
unfortunately does not feature in Toms tests.

There is no "maybe" too it. These are old technologies so
we have the luxury of hindsight. Many of use have (or still
do) own a few systems with their processors and can be
certain of how much slower the K6-2 is at everything, but
again this is only considering (every parameter of) CPU
performance, not performance of a motherboard chipset or
video card or (other bottleneck).


Also I believe CPU's can me made to 'target' certain benchmarks.

Because they have different architectures, indeed any given
CPU will be faster at some task than others. However, some
things remain constant. For example, the lack of L2 cache
on a K6-2 makes it always slower than K6-3 at same MHz
speed, same FSB. K6-3 is never as fast as a P3 either, not
in any benchmark that leaves the CPU as a significant
bottleneck. There is nothing that I'm aware of that any
K6-2 can do even 70% as fast as the P3 in the linked
article.

Benchmarks are only as good as the subsystems they're
stressing. You wouldn't use a benchmark for monitor
response time to gauge CPU peformance either.

Well I did find the results surprising so maybe they
are wromg, my experience so far is that the K6 is very slow!!

I might have got the settings wrong, either way I had problems
I also set some jumpers wrong the first time i tried, which
may have damaged the chip? Maybe I was sold a duff chip?
I can't claim this because I ran it with bad settings myself
first time. However it sill seems to work.
I cant see how I could damage it so that it would run slowly though.

Donald McTrevor wrote:

" I also set some jumpers wrong the first time i tried, which may have
damaged the chip? Maybe I was sold a duff chip? "


I don't know which motherboard you are using, but I remember having to
set separate jumpers on my MSI MS-5182 for the core voltage, multiplier
and FSB of a K6-2. I take it you checked your motherboard's manual, set
them all correctly, and have it running at the proper spec.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:14:26 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


Well I did find the results surprising so maybe they
are wromg, my experience so far is that the K6 is very slow!!

It is very slow. However, it's still faster than the CPU it
replaced IF it's running properly. I suspect you have
motherboard settings wrong, and that is why I suggested
checking the operational parameters with CPU-Z.



I might have got the settings wrong, either way I had problems
I also set some jumpers wrong the first time i tried, which
may have damaged the chip? Maybe I was sold a duff chip?

Setting the wrong multiplier or FSB will not damage the
chip, however if it were operating beyond what it can do
stabily, it could corrupt data, the realtime running state
of the OS and/or anything subsequently written to any
drive(s). Providing you had the voltage at correct (2.2 or
2.4V) setting then the CPU should be fine.

Since your CPU is a 300MHz version, you might try Google
searching for it's specific model code- there were a few
"rare" 300MHz versions of the K6-2 that had cache problems
and as a result, AMD spec'd them to only run at 66MHz FSB,
no faster than that. It was an initial confusion in the
industry at the time because it had been expected that all
300MHz parts could run at 3 x 100MHz FSB, and later they did
fix the problem so there were subsequent 300MHz versions
that were spec'd for 3 x 100MHz FSB instead of 4.5 x 66MHz
FSB.


I can't claim this because I ran it with bad settings myself
first time. However it sill seems to work.
I cant see how I could damage it so that it would run slowly though.

Setting the multiplier too low would cause it. If you had
been doing anything in the bios, perhaps you accidentally
disabled the L2 cache?

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:14:26 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


Well I did find the results surprising so maybe they
are wromg, my experience so far is that the K6 is very slow!!

It is very slow. However, it's still faster than the CPU it
replaced IF it's running properly. I suspect you have
motherboard settings wrong, and that is why I suggested
checking the operational parameters with CPU-Z.



I might have got the settings wrong, either way I had problems
I also set some jumpers wrong the first time i tried, which
may have damaged the chip? Maybe I was sold a duff chip?

Setting the wrong multiplier or FSB will not damage the
chip, however if it were operating beyond what it can do
stabily, it could corrupt data, the realtime running state
of the OS and/or anything subsequently written to any
drive(s). Providing you had the voltage at correct (2.2 or
2.4V) setting then the CPU should be fine.

Since your CPU is a 300MHz version, you might try Google
searching for it's specific model code- there were a few
"rare" 300MHz versions of the K6-2 that had cache problems
and as a result, AMD spec'd them to only run at 66MHz FSB,
no faster than that. It was an initial confusion in the
industry at the time because it had been expected that all
300MHz parts could run at 3 x 100MHz FSB, and later they did
fix the problem so there were subsequent 300MHz versions
that were spec'd for 3 x 100MHz FSB instead of 4.5 x 66MHz
FSB.




Maybe, I did set it at 66mhz before but that crashed however,
I may well have had other settings wrong possibly. It is also
possible they were due to bad files on my hard disk caused by
previous crashes
I have made some diagrams of the jumper settings which should
help to avoid making errors.


Actually I just found this
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/19990121/
Which confirms what you said above and I have just had a look
at the marking on the chip and it is indeed an :-
AMD-K6-2/300AFR-66
2.2V CORE / 3.3V I/O
A 98500PM
m © 1996 AMD


It was described as AMD K6-II 300MHz socket 7 processor somewhat
misleadingly in the item description, but it did give a fuller description
later on so I can't complain, especially as it only cost £1



I can't claim this because I ran it with bad settings myself
first time. However it sill seems to work.
I cant see how I could damage it so that it would run slowly though.

Setting the multiplier too low would cause it. If you had
been doing anything in the bios, perhaps you accidentally
disabled the L2 cache?

Never touched the BIOS but I could easilly have made some
errors setting the fiddlely jumpers and I did make at least two
errors which I found so it would not be a great surprise if I made more.

I will give it another 'go' later and hopefully it will be OK.

There is another one not a 66AFR for sale for £1 (£2 inc p&p).
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CPU-AMD-K6-2-3...cmd ZViewItem

However I may be able to pick up a faster one to use 6X75Mhz.

There difference between the two chips is not much
http://www.cpu-world.com/cgi-bin/Com...ACTION=Compare


Actually I have been thinking that I can try that X2=X6 so I could go
50Mhz X 6 = 300Mhx or 66Mhx X 6 = 400Mhz!!!! but I think that will
be too high.


I will try again a bit later.

"Donald McTrevor" wrote in message
...

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:14:26 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
wrote:


Well I did find the results surprising so maybe they
are wromg, my experience so far is that the K6 is very slow!!

It is very slow. However, it's still faster than the CPU it
replaced IF it's running properly. I suspect you have
motherboard settings wrong, and that is why I suggested
checking the operational parameters with CPU-Z.



I might have got the settings wrong, either way I had problems
I also set some jumpers wrong the first time i tried, which
may have damaged the chip? Maybe I was sold a duff chip?

Setting the wrong multiplier or FSB will not damage the
chip, however if it were operating beyond what it can do
stabily, it could corrupt data, the realtime running state
of the OS and/or anything subsequently written to any
drive(s). Providing you had the voltage at correct (2.2 or
2.4V) setting then the CPU should be fine.

Since your CPU is a 300MHz version, you might try Google
searching for it's specific model code- there were a few
"rare" 300MHz versions of the K6-2 that had cache problems
and as a result, AMD spec'd them to only run at 66MHz FSB,
no faster than that. It was an initial confusion in the
industry at the time because it had been expected that all
300MHz parts could run at 3 x 100MHz FSB, and later they did
fix the problem so there were subsequent 300MHz versions
that were spec'd for 3 x 100MHz FSB instead of 4.5 x 66MHz
FSB.




Maybe, I did set it at 66mhz before but that crashed however,
I may well have had other settings wrong possibly. It is also
possible they were due to bad files on my hard disk caused by
previous crashes
I have made some diagrams of the jumper settings which should
help to avoid making errors.


Actually I just found this
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/19990121/
Which confirms what you said above and I have just had a look
at the marking on the chip and it is indeed an :-
AMD-K6-2/300AFR-66
2.2V CORE / 3.3V I/O
A 98500PM
m © 1996 AMD


It was described as AMD K6-II 300MHz socket 7 processor somewhat
misleadingly in the item description, but it did give a fuller description
later on so I can't complain, especially as it only cost £1



I can't claim this because I ran it with bad settings myself
first time. However it sill seems to work.
I cant see how I could damage it so that it would run slowly though.

Setting the multiplier too low would cause it. If you had
been doing anything in the bios, perhaps you accidentally
disabled the L2 cache?

Never touched the BIOS but I could easilly have made some
errors setting the fiddlely jumpers and I did make at least two
errors which I found so it would not be a great surprise if I made more.

I will give it another 'go' later and hopefully it will be OK.

There is another one not a 66AFR for sale for £1 (£2 inc p&p).

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CPU-AMD-K6-2-3...cmd ZViewItem

However I may be able to pick up a faster one to use 6X75Mhz.

There difference between the two chips is not much

http://www.cpu-world.com/cgi-bin/Com...ACTION=Compare


Actually I have been thinking that I can try that X2=X6 so I could go
50Mhz X 6 = 300Mhx or 66Mhx X 6 = 400Mhz!!!! but I think that will
be too high.


I will try again a bit later.

Well I am up and running at 4X66, been up for about 10 mins no
probs yet!!
Here is info from aida32
]---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Version AIDA32 v3.93
Author
Homepage http://www.aida32.hu
Report Type Quick Report
Computer OEMCOMPUTER (Unknown
User)
Generator guest
Operating System Microsoft Windows 98
4.10.1998 (Win98 Retail)
Date 2005-08-10
Time 17:36


--------[
CPU ]-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------

CPU Properties:
CPU Type AMD K6-2, 266 MHz (4
x 67)
CPU Alias Chomper Extended,
K6-2-CXT
CPU Stepping CXT/A
L1 Code Cache 32 KB
L1 Data Cache 32 KB
L2 Cache 0

CPU Physical Info:
Package Type 321 Pin PGA
Package Size 4.95 cm x 4.95 cm
Transistors 9.3 million
Process Technology 5Mi, 0.25 um, CMOS
Die Size 81 mm2
Core Voltage 2.2 - 2.4 V
I/O Voltage 3.3 V
Typical Power 8.1 - 17.8 W
(depending on clock speed)
Maximum Power 13.5 - 29.6 W
(depending on clock speed)

CPU Manufacturer:
Company Name Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc.
Product Information
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...30_118,00.html

CPU Utilization:
CPU #1 12 %

Problems & Suggestions:
Problem No CPU L2 cache
found. This may cause performance penalty.


--------[ Debug -
PCI ]-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------

I see it has no L2 cache but I think this ia feature rather than a problem.

But.....
http://www2.geek.com/discus/messages...tml?1013720343

SO it seems you can turn it on in the BIOS but I don't know how to do that!!
Any assistance appreciated :O)


I will try and find out myself though.

More later, I will try 6X50 too.

I don't know if my system is any faster though, it took a little longer
to boot up (I think). I will try some tests.

Anyway been running 30 minutes with no problems (yet!!).

I see it has no L2 cache but I think this ia feature rather than a
problem.

But.....
http://www2.geek.com/discus/messages...tml?1013720343

SO it seems you can turn it on in the BIOS but I don't know how to do
that!!
Any assistance appreciated :O)


I will try and find out myself though.

More later, I will try 6X50 too.

I don't know if my system is any faster though, it took a little longer
to boot up (I think). I will try some tests.

Anyway been running 30 minutes with no problems (yet!!).


Running OK at 6X50 but I would not say it is any faster.

CPU Properties:
CPU Type AMD K6-2, 300 MHz (6 x
50)
CPU Alias Chomper Extended,
K6-2-CXT
CPU Stepping CXT/A
L1 Code Cache 32 KB
L1 Data Cache 32 KB
L2 Cache 0


Still no L2 cache I went into the BIOS but there was no option there
to enable it, I think maybe there will only be an option in the BIOS when
it is set up for a Cyrix (maybe I will have to see).

Also there may be more speeds availabe than listed in my manual,
the web page I gave for the mobo shows a 4.5 setting so 4.5X66=300
might work and be the best setting.

I can also try overclocking but at the moment I don't think it
is any faster than the Cyrix but I will try to to some proper tests/
benchmarks.