Very Computer

I'd like to upgrade my current K6-2 350 Processor.
My preferred candidates are the K6-2 450 and the K6-3 400, the latter
only slightly more expensive than the 6-2.
The question is, does the improved architecture of the 6-3 outweigh the
'missing' 50 MHz?
I know it all depends on the software you run, but is there a rule of
thumb, or a website that does a comparison?

Thanks for any insights.

Michael

The K6-3 400 is faster than the K6-2 450.  Main reason is the K6-3 has
256K of L2 cache on the chip running at 400 MHz... in addition to the
standard 64K L1 cache AMD has.  The K6-2 has no internal L2 cache and
uses the motherboard cache at the 100MHz or 66MHZ motherboard bus
speed.  The K6-3 uses it as well, but calls it L3.

K6-3 400 faster than K6-2 450 in most of the cases.

Quote:> I'd like to upgrade my current K6-2 350 Processor.
> My preferred candidates are the K6-2 450 and the K6-3 400, the latter
> only slightly more expensive than the 6-2.
> The question is, does the improved architecture of the 6-3 outweigh the
> 'missing' 50 MHz?
> I know it all depends on the software you run, but is there a rule of
> thumb, or a website that does a comparison?

> Thanks for any insights.

> Michael

tnxalot, this confirms my decision.

In general, I'd say yes.

The K6-3 has 256K of L2 cache in the CPU core, running at the chip's
full speed (400 MHz, in your case).

Compare this against the K6-2, whose cache (probably 256K, 512K or 1M)
is on the motherboard, running at the bus speed of 100MHz (which is 22%
of the CPU's core speed.)

The full-speed cache will outweigh the faster clock speed for all but
the most contrived test cases.

Case in point: Intel Celeron vs. P2.  A Celeron, (with 128K of full-
speed cache) performs almost identically to a P2 at the same clock speed
(with its 512K of half-speed cache.)

The effect of doubling the cache speed in the Intel processors is so
pronounced that the Celeron gets almost-identical performance with a
cache that's 25% the size of the P2's.

In your case, we're not comparing half-speed vs. full-speed.  We're
comparing 22%-speed vs full-speed.  This will have an even more
pronounced effect.  Almost certainly enough to make up for an 11% drop
in clock speed.

-- David

My boss and I both have 450's, mine is a K6-2, his a 6-3.  One of our
salesmen was interested in upgrading his home PC's K6-2 350, as you
are.  We downloaded SiSoft Sandra 99 and ran benchmarks with _nothing_
running but explorer and systray, and the difference was not, IMHO,
enough to justify a K6-3.  For the money, look into a K6-2 500.  Would
give better/equal performance to the K6-3 450, and a lower price.
Besides, the 500 should tide you over until you can afford the Athlon
700!

Just my nickel before taxes...
--
Mike Voelker
Mensco, Inc.
mail: mvoelker at mensco dot com

Quote:>running but explorer and systray, and the difference was not, IMHO,
>enough to justify a K6-3.  For the money, look into a K6-2 500.  Would

The internal L2-Cache with Full-Clock improve much operations, most Benchmark
Software cannot register that. Try to compile a kernel on both chips or encode
some MP3 Stuff to get a look of the power.

--
This posting offers only my personal meanings
ByeBye
Eric

As I said, IMHO I wouldn't spend the extra dough for the K6-3.  I know
that it performs better, but I don't think the improvement is worth 100
bucks (in the US), do you?  

Besides, it's just a matter of time until the Athlon's come down in
price! (Did you see that AMD is _not_ posting a loss this quarter?  How
cool is that...)

--
Mike Voelker
Mensco, Inc.
mail: mvoelker at mensco dot com

Quote:> I'd like to upgrade my current K6-2 350 Processor.
> My preferred candidates are the K6-2 450 and the K6-3 400,
the latter
> only slightly more expensive than the 6-2.
> The question is, does the improved architecture of the 6-3
outweigh the
> 'missing' 50 MHz?
> I know it all depends on the software you run, but is there a
rule of
> thumb, or a website that does a comparison?

> Thanks for any insights.

> Michael

I have run a K6-3 400 and K6-2 450.  They are both good.  Since
the K6-3 is not going to be developed any more (obsolete), I
would suggest the K6-2.  I have compiled the kernel as a test
of performance on both machines and they are pretty close.  And
when you add lots of memory to both, they seem to perform
equal.  I wouldn't by a K6-3 because it's obsolete.  But AMD
will be upgrading the K6-2 to use .18 micro technology which
means you will see 1GHz K6-2 processors some time next year.
Matt

--
  This answer is courtesy of QuestionExchange.com
  http://www.questionexchange.com/showUsenetGuest.jhtml?ans_id=8731&cus...

Why do you care if there might not be a next-generation K6-3?  Is that
going to somehow make the one in your computer less useful?

It makes no sense to go with a slower processor based solely on how many
years they'll continue selling it.

And if the K6-2 ever does become a faster chip, it's no big deal to
upgrade to it.  The K6-2 and K6-3 use the same socket and fit on the
same motherboards.

And if you think, for a minute, that today's K6-2 motherboards are going
to support a 1GHz processor, I've got a bridge to sell you.

-- David