"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:0svhf1dv8nufbm1orv3pepjor3eia7o7c8@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:41:35 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> 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.
>
>