"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:37iff1lsdssfiv619o54nohsrjn7a7sm0s@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:04:37 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >I don't see why we should doubt the figures as I a sure they would have
> >been questioned if the results looked wong.
>
> They are being questioned, there are far too many benchmarks
> to count, that directly contradict the 'site you linked.

Really? Well I struggled to find them with google, I even posted here
earlier, requesting benchmarks (without any replies).
If any one can post benchmarks to contradict the site please do!!

If they were incorrect I imagine it would have been spotted now,
after several years!!

If you still doubt them why not drop them an email?
mailto:webmaster@cpu-world.com

>
>
> >Anyway the 300mhz K6/2 I bought for a £1 out performed the PIII 933mhz!!
> >So I am happy,
>
>
> On average a properly configured P3 box will be over 50%
> faster, sometimes over 100% faster. So long as you're happy
> though, I suppose that's what matters in the end.

Well yes but you cannot compare CPU's running in boxes with
vastly different configurations.
Well I might get my K6 tomorrow, I have already forked out
£2.50 on some thermal compound, (more than it cost for the CPU!!).

On slighty unhappier note it seems that a an AMD K6-2 will interpretate
a X2 clock as a X6 clock, so I might be able to run a 450MHz AMD.
So maybe I should have bought a faster processor!!
Will I have to spend another £1 to get one?!!

Maybe the graphics card was a bottle neck but it still showed the
PIII running slower.

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.