Very Computer

I have been goin over a bunch of old posts, and have found very little
favorable posts about it.  I find most people are fine with it as long
as they don't recompile a kernel.  I occasionaly see people talking
about 6.5 minute compile times with them, but with what mb?

TIA

Chris

--
"Thats the wooly-headed kind of liberal thinking that leads to being eaten"
"They aren't insects, they are arachnids" -- Wendel
        "You mean they're from the Middle East?" -- Xander
"Your balloon animals sucked!  Anybody can do a Giraffe" -- Xander

I have no problems with the K5 under linux on an Asus mainboard. Kernel
compile times run in that range, with no errors. I haven't got a K5 in
front of me right now to give an exact answer, but 6m30s sounds right.

Some of the different numbers probably have a lot to do with the disk
subsystem, too.

Donovan Ready,
Lindsay Computer Systems
http://www.jumpnet.com/~lcs

=================================================
Before sending unsolicited e-mail, be sure to see
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
=================================================

Amptron 9000 motherboard, 512k cache, 16MB EDO RAM, AMD K5 PR133, Seagate
EIDE HD:

Kernel compile takes about 6 minutes. Can't remember the exact figure...
but it was somewhat faster than a comparable pentium 133. Floating point
intensive apps. run a bit faster than a pentium 100.

No problems with it whatsoever. Paid $85 for the chip a month ago...

Carlos

    But as far as my experience goes, the AMD K5 is superior in every
    way to a similarly clocked Intel 80502.

                  ____

                   \/

: >I have been goin over a bunch of old posts, and have found very little
: >favorable posts about it.

I certainly posted positively some time ago.  the K5 is completely
problem-free, and fully P5-compatible, even on esoteric features
like 4M pages, RDTSC, etc.

kernel compile times vary widely depending on what .config you choose.
for mine, a P5/133 did a make in 7.5 minutes, 7.0 minutes with a K5/133.
identical hardware, which was a Supermicro STE/512, 32M EDO, 3G WD EIDE
using busmastering.  kernel 2.0.20 or so.

I have to admit I'm jaded by my current dual P6/200 though ;)

:     But as far as my experience goes, the AMD K5 is superior in every
:     way to a similarly clocked Intel 80502.

it's _definitely_ not in FP performance.  there it's up to 40% slower.
and that's not on P5-scheduled Quake or some asinine magazine benchmark...

regards, mark hahn.
--

                                        http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/~hahn/

   I think AMD made a mistake when they started ignoring the clockspeed
   in favor of this bogus pentium rating.  Though I suppose that 90% of
   the target market won't care much about the speed of floating point
   and will be more impressed to see K5/PR133 instead of K5/110 labelled
   on the chip.

                 ____

                  \/

Quote:>    I think this depends on which model of K5 you get.  Apparently the
>    newer ones cheat on their advertised speed; the K5PR133 runs at
>    either 100 or 110mhz internally.  The earlier K5s (75,90,100)
>    actually ran at the advertised clock speed and would, in my warhorse
>    test of doing quantum chemistry modelling, complete the task about 5%
>    faster than the similar Intel product.

>    I think AMD made a mistake when they started ignoring the clockspeed
>    in favor of this bogus pentium rating.  Though I suppose that 90% of
>    the target market won't care much about the speed of floating point
>    and will be more impressed to see K5/PR133 instead of K5/110 labelled
>    on the chip.

>    david parsons

--

Donovan Ready,
Lindsay Computer Systems
http://www.jumpnet.com/~lcs

=================================================
Before sending unsolicited e-mail, be sure to see
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
=================================================

I have been told by a number of people with K5100s that they had similar
experiences, and by a number of people with K5133s that they did not have this
problem, so I would spend the extra 10-20$ and go for a 133, or perhaps a K6.

Nice and zippy, I must admit, and half the price of an intel product at the
time I bought.

Scott

"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

: I have been reasonably happy with the K5100 I am using.  I did find a strange
: behavior - if I compiled a kernel with anything higher than a 386 processor
: type, a boot with that kernel would not compile anything else.  As long as I
: left the processor type alone, things worked just fine.

: I have been told by a number of people with K5100s that they had similar
: experiences, and by a number of people with K5133s that they did not

I'm running 2.0.30 (with pre-31 patches), compiled for 586, compiled
on this system, which is a K5-133, 32MB RAM.  It's a nice change from
my old system (386/25, 8M, no 387).  Frankly, it doesn't make any
difference to me what they call it -- the digital display on the front
of my old tower case only has two digits!
-- ps

Amateur Radio K9PS    PGP key at http://www.custom.net/pschmidt
ARRL Life Member          fingerprint:  24 9F D3 BD AE E3 50 72
QCWA Life Member 26711  {Linux 2.0.30}  23 AB A0 64 BB 9E 2B 8D