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

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

Hello I am just curious to know why the 'doom' benchmaks do not show any
improvement when going froom the K6/2 to the Pentium II 933mhz.
The 1100 Duron ain't much better either.


??? Explaination ???

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:48:53 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>http://www.cpu-world.com/cgi-bin/Com...ACTION=Compare
>
>Hello I am just curious to know why the 'doom' benchmaks do not show any
>improvement when going froom the K6/2 to the Pentium II 933mhz.
>The 1100 Duron ain't much better either.
>
>
>??? Explaination ???
>

You are relying far too much on overly simplified
benchmarks. Even so, game benchmarks are often detemined
more by video than CPU.

In the case of the P3, it appears the chosen motherboard
used a particularly poor chipset for the P3 era (Via 693).
I predict that if the chipset on the P3 motherboard had been
i440BX, Via 694, i820 or i815, the P3 would've had a more
even opportunity (to isolate the video as a bottleneck).

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.

You cannot use those benchmarks for comparison of gaming
because the system they used (if the same as mentioned here,
http://www.cpu-world.com/info/bench/...m_P5M4_M_.html
has 100MHz FSB, PC100 memory, and AGP video. As I'd already
mentioned, your system has several limitations in addition
to CPU, it really wasn't worth the time to upgrade except
perhaps for a young child's use.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:813df1tu3h1fkl74cipovutkpplvj85sn5@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:48:53 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
>http://www.cpu-world.com/cgi-bin/Com...II-300GP+%2875
+MHz+2.9V%29+%28CPGA%29+-+Tekram+P5M4-M%2B&CPU1=AMD+K6-2+300+-+AMD-K6-2%2F30
0AFR-66+%28SPGA%29+-+Tekram+P5M4-M%2B&CPU2=Intel+Pentium+III+933+-+933%2F256
%2F133%2F1.7V+%28FCPGA%29+%28FCPGA%29+-+Epox+EP-693A&CPU3=AMD+Duron+1100+-+D
HD1100AMT1B+%28PGA%29+-+Abit+KT7-RAID&CPU4=&PAGE_NAME=COMPARE_BENCH&ACTION=C
ompare
> >
> >Hello I am just curious to know why the 'doom' benchmaks do not show any
> >improvement when going froom the K6/2 to the Pentium II 933mhz.
> >The 1100 Duron ain't much better either.
> >
> >
> >??? Explaination ???
> >
>
> You are relying far too much on overly simplified
> benchmarks. Even so, game benchmarks are often detemined
> more by video than CPU.
>
> In the case of the P3, it appears the chosen motherboard
> used a particularly poor chipset for the P3 era (Via 693).
> I predict that if the chipset on the P3 motherboard had been
> i440BX, Via 694, i820 or i815, the P3 would've had a more
> even opportunity (to isolate the video as a bottleneck).
>
> 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!!
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!!

>
> You cannot use those benchmarks for comparison of gaming
> because the system they used (if the same as mentioned here,
> http://www.cpu-world.com/info/bench/...m_P5M4_M_.html
> has 100MHz FSB, PC100 memory, and AGP video. As I'd already
> mentioned, your system has several limitations in addition
> to CPU, it really wasn't worth the time to upgrade except
> perhaps for a young child's use.

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.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:34:27 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> 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" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:9lvJe.23934$bT4.8116@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> http://www.cpu-world.com/cgi-bin/Com...ACTION=Compare
>
> Hello I am just curious to know why the 'doom' benchmaks do not show any
> improvement when going froom the K6/2 to the Pentium II 933mhz.
> The 1100 Duron ain't much better either.
>
>
> ??? Explaination ???

I dont for a second believe those figures are anything like accurate - 3D
games demand good floating point performance from a processor and the Cyrix
was abysmal at that. The idea that a Cyrix 300 could give 60% of the
framerate you'd get from even a PII300 would stretch crudility never mind a
933mhz chip.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 07:23:08 GMT, "Sleepy"
<bpespleyremovetheobvious@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:9lvJe.23934$bT4.8116@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> http://www.cpu-world.com/cgi-bin/Com...ACTION=Compare
>>
>> Hello I am just curious to know why the 'doom' benchmaks do not show any
>> improvement when going froom the K6/2 to the Pentium II 933mhz.
>> The 1100 Duron ain't much better either.
>>
>>
>> ??? Explaination ???
>
>I dont for a second believe those figures are anything like accurate - 3D
>games demand good floating point performance from a processor and the Cyrix
>was abysmal at that. The idea that a Cyrix 300 could give 60% of the
>framerate you'd get from even a PII300 would stretch crudility never mind a
>933mhz chip.

The video card they mention is a particularly poor one, Rage
8MB.

"Sleepy" <bpespleyremovetheobvious@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wLDJe.29174$ia4.22609@fe1.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>
> "Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:9lvJe.23934$bT4.8116@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> >
http://www.cpu-world.com/cgi-bin/Com...ACTION=Compare
> >
> > Hello I am just curious to know why the 'doom' benchmaks do not show any
> > improvement when going froom the K6/2 to the Pentium II 933mhz.
> > The 1100 Duron ain't much better either.
> >
> >
> > ??? Explaination ???
>
> I dont for a second believe those figures are anything like accurate - 3D
> games demand good floating point performance from a processor and the
Cyrix
> was abysmal at that. The idea that a Cyrix 300 could give 60% of the
> framerate you'd get from even a PII300 would stretch crudility never mind
a
> 933mhz chip.


I don't see why we should doubt the figures as I a sure they would have
been questioned if the results looked wong.
Anyway the 300mhz K6/2 I bought for a £1 out performed the PIII 933mhz!!
So I am happy,
>
>
>

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.


>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.

"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.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:49:55 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"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!!

1) You can't compare two CPUs by running benchmarks that
stress OTHER parts of a system.

2) I had already attempted to take a short-cut regarding
performance, it is NOT worth the time to do all this
research on a minor upgrade to a decade old system.

3) The 'site you linked, did list figures for synthetic CPU
performance, most of the figures prior to the Game entries
would be the more relevant comparison between the CPUs.

4) Try Google searching for K6-2 & Pentium 3 benchmarks


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

No, consider that quite a few web reviews are wrong or
inconclusive, if not so poorly set up to be worthless
indications. Just take my word for it, the performance
difference is very large between a K6-2 and a (near 1 GHz)
coppermine P3. There is absolutely nothing the K6-2 does
anywhere near as fast, except possibly some VERY rare
application that only had 3DNow optimizations, and offhand I
can't think of any such applications that didn't have at
least MMX if not SSE support if they had 3Dnow by the time a
P3 Coppermine was near 1GHz.


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

At this point who cares?
Do you realize how much time it would take to email every
single web reviewer who had inconclusive (if not worse)
reviews, stats, etc, etc ? It's just not worth the time,
and besides that, the average reviewer is a young kid that
gets very defensive when they're corrected, will argue
themselves into a hole and then just ignore all logic and
other reviews. Even so, the page you linked was merely a
set of results, it did not appear to be a direct comparison
of the two CPUs for any useful purpose- you have taken one
small subset of data out of a much larger amount, out of
context.


>> 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.

That's exactly what the review did, because it used
different motherboard chipsets.

>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!!).

Did it ever dawn on you that it might've been so cheap
because it doen't have very good performance? I have a
stack of old K6 CPUs "somewhere", I lost them and it
wouldn't be worth the trouble to find them. It's not just
that they had low performance but so many limitations
compared to other slightly newer yet (today) quite cheap if
not free hardware. Just a couple years later the typical
motherboard had vastly better memory performance running
same PC100 memory, actually had a fair amount of
compatibility with AGP video cards, could run ATA66 hard
drives and support far larger drives. As mentioned
previously, there is a certain "hump" to get over for
moderately reasonable performance at modern tasks and it
takes a little bit newer system to meet that goal.


>
>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?!!

Unhappier? That's exactly what you should be wanting, since
your board doesnt even support 100MHz FSB.

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

No, it showed an entire system running slower. It was a bit
of coincidence that it happened to have a P3 in it.
I'm not going to spend any more time on this silliness, it's
a known fact that a K6-2 is the slowest CPU one could buy,
by the time a P3 Coppermine CPU came out. Well on second
thought there were probably some odd IBM/Via/C3 CPUs still
in the market but they never had much interest from anyone
concerned about performance.


>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.

Ignorance is bliss?

>I think the truth is the K6-2 is a great processor which punches
>above it weight in some applications.

To find truth, first you would need more than one
ill-configured benchmark. There were tons of benchmarks out
there and it's just silly to dwell on what is known
industry-wide. There is NO K6-2 that is as fast as even the
slowest P3, even the generation before the P3 coppermine
which was slower and only went up to around 600MHz.

However, same things apply that I mentioned about your
system, that there are other bottlenecks that just a CPU.
If you put a P3 (or a K6-2, or whatever) on a horrible or
misconfigured motherboard, or have OS problems, it may
easily effect the performance.

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" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:nuedf1hetltp3mgm84u5f23gelcdospmod@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:34:27 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> 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 fucked up big time
with their tests.

"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:dda9ai$ati$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> 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 fucked 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"
<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.

"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.
>
>

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:14:26 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> 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" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:skhjf1lkvs37km87aonaosda5egcea7qqb@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:14:26 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> 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...QQcmdZViewItem

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" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:evoKe.1836$bf6.1718@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:skhjf1lkvs37km87aonaosda5egcea7qqb@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:14:26 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> > <me@privacy.net> 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...QQcmdZViewItem
>
> 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 tamas.miklos@aida32.hu
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.



>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

In my recollection and experience, the K6-2 300 would only
overclock
about 10%, or to 66x5.



"Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tjrKe.2379$9b6.1474@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> >
>> 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.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

"Pen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rfqdnRuRlvQZ2WffRVn-gg@adelphia.com...
> In my recollection and experience, the K6-2 300 would only
> overclock
> about 10%, or to 66x5.

I maybe able to X4.5 and X5 although not offically in the manual.
I think I need to overclock it by about 300% unfortunately!!

>
>
>
> "Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:tjrKe.2379$9b6.1474@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> > >
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:49:09 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:


>
>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)

Lack of L2 cache on the CPU is a problem, in that it makes
the CPU significantly slower. However, earlier socket 7
cpus didn't have L2 cache integral either, so at least your
motherboard does have L2 cache on it. You do not need to
change any board bios settings for the L2 cache, certainly
it was enabled all these years with you Cyrix CPU (else it
would've ran so slow it wasn't useable at all) and remains
enabled unless you manually disable it.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:16:28 -0400, "Pen"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In my recollection and experience, the K6-2 300 would only
>overclock
>about 10%, or to 66x5.
>


His variant is a weak K6-2, too, it probably has less
headroom than the avg (later version of) 300MHz chip. The
last ones sold did sometimes make it past 400MHz but it
usually not to 500MHz or more, and at that point the 400MHz
versions weren't even much more expensive.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:nuqkf11ve2m0v0atito28bf579tdsqome5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:49:09 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >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)
>
> Lack of L2 cache on the CPU is a problem, in that it makes
> the CPU significantly slower. However, earlier socket 7
> cpus didn't have L2 cache integral either, so at least your
> motherboard does have L2 cache on it. You do not need to
> change any board bios settings for the L2 cache, certainly
> it was enabled all these years with you Cyrix CPU (else it
> would've ran so slow it wasn't useable at all) and remains
> enabled unless you manually disable it.

There is a jumper which allows you to run L2 cache at
'linear burst mode' for the Cyrix, so maybe I can only
have L2 cache with a Cyrix? I don't know.
I am trying to see if I can update my BIOS.
(not got very far).

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:40:49 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:


>There is a jumper which allows you to run L2 cache at
>'linear burst mode' for the Cyrix, so maybe I can only
>have L2 cache with a Cyrix? I don't know.
>I am trying to see if I can update my BIOS.
>(not got very far).
>


Read your motherboard manual. You can use simple benchmark
tests for memory, cache performance in Sisoft Sandra. It
will also provide a crude CPU benchmark too. Linear burst
mode was Cyrix specific, IF I remember correctly. K6-2
should use the default cache setting shown in your manual,
the same as a Pentium 1/1-MMX did.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:134lf1t449d6bkpahtbvegkbgh00b5s65t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:40:49 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >There is a jumper which allows you to run L2 cache at
> >'linear burst mode' for the Cyrix, so maybe I can only
> >have L2 cache with a Cyrix? I don't know.
> >I am trying to see if I can update my BIOS.
> >(not got very far).
> >
>
>
> Read your motherboard manual. You can use simple benchmark
> tests for memory, cache performance in Sisoft Sandra. It
> will also provide a crude CPU benchmark too. Linear burst
> mode was Cyrix specific, IF I remember correctly. K6-2
> should use the default cache setting shown in your manual,
> the same as a Pentium 1/1-MMX did.

The manual is not too helpful:-

"Cache 0/512KB, Write Back Direct Mapped organisation, Pipeline Burst
Cache soldered onto the motherboard" is what it says.

I can't find anything in the manual to enable cache for the K6, I get the
impression
it cannot be done. There are no more jumper setting mentioned and nothing
I could do in the BIOS when I booted with the K6.
I will try looking at the BIOS with the Cyrix.
Maybe a BIOS upgrade might help.

"Donald McTrevor" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c_wKe.5874$JB4.4671@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:134lf1t449d6bkpahtbvegkbgh00b5s65t@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:40:49 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"
> > <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >There is a jumper which allows you to run L2 cache at
> > >'linear burst mode' for the Cyrix, so maybe I can only
> > >have L2 cache with a Cyrix? I don't know.
> > >I am trying to see if I can update my BIOS.
> > >(not got very far).
> > >
> >
> >
> > Read your motherboard manual. You can use simple benchmark
> > tests for memory, cache performance in Sisoft Sandra. It
> > will also provide a crude CPU benchmark too. Linear burst
> > mode was Cyrix specific, IF I remember correctly. K6-2
> > should use the default cache setting shown in your manual,
> > the same as a Pentium 1/1-MMX did.
>
> The manual is not too helpful:-
>
> "Cache 0/512KB, Write Back Direct Mapped organisation, Pipeline Burst
> Cache soldered onto the motherboard" is what it says.
>
> I can't find anything in the manual to enable cache for the K6, I get the
> impression
> it cannot be done. There are no more jumper setting mentioned and nothing
> I could do in the BIOS when I booted with the K6.
> I will try looking at the BIOS with the Cyrix.
> Maybe a BIOS upgrade might help.

The BIOS menu is the same with the Cyrix.
There are more BIOS menu options in the manual than
in the actual BIOS setup.
"BIOS features set up" seems to be missing, or
may it was "Standard Cmos set up" I forget, but it is one of the
two.
There is also a an option to load the default settings but I am
wary of doing that.

In the link I suspected was my mobo
http://www.uktsupport.co.uk/pb/mb/850.htm

There is another link.(BIOS upgrade)
http://support.packardbell.com/uk/my...S00300200#show
File Title: PB850