celeron vs amd k6 2/3

[Kev G]

i'm interested in purchasing a new chip. I have a motherboard which supports both amd k62/ 3 (83mhz bus) and i'm wondering whats better the amd chips or the celeron??

[scotter]

well to go with the celly you would need a new board but to get the true speed from a k6-2/3 you need a 100mhz board
Personaly I will not buy from intel so http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif
I do not like the way they try to control the market http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif
but for all intents and perposes there really is not to much diff in the performance not that the normal person is going to really see in every day use
the cellys overclock better than the K6-2/3's but you end up with about the same speed for the price anyway so that is really not as valid a argument as most say it is.

so it realy boils down to what you want or like the best AMD chips or give intel all your money chips http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Anyway that's my .02 cents worth http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[ktwebb]

Really depends if you want to spend the extra hundred or so bucks for a new motherboard. Scotter is incorrect about the performance difference. Well, in integer performance, the K-6 line is actually a bit faster than its Intel competitor, but if you do 3D apps (Photoshop, CAD), or 3D games, the Intel chip is the only answer, unless you buy an Athlon from AMD. The K-6 lines have extremely weak floating point performance. If a game is optimized for the 3D-Now instruction set, then AMD can compete, but it is still slower. Since you have the board already, you might want just keep it and buy a high clock K6-3. It should be able to maintain reasonably high framerates in most games (Not for long though) and it will open up Word and other integer based apps very quickly.

[Axel]

So - if you're on a budget, the AMD is the way to go. If money is no object and you want gaming performance, the Celeron chip is the way to go.

I haven't seem a problem with conflicts with software with the AMD line. - But I definitely advise staying away from Cyrix chips. I've experienced several software and I/O chipset conflicts with cyrix and via chip sets and will never go back to one.

[Crahl]

If you play a lotta 3D intensive games or use alot of intensive apps requiring 3D modelling etc, the Celeron wil be sufficient though as said earlier, you'd need a new board.

AMD chips are improving by leaps and bounds but I'd advise againt the K6-3 since the price diff btw the K6-2 and it doesn't justify the performance improvements. Go for a K6-2, maybe a 380MHz one since your motherboar doesn't support a system bus speed of 100MHz.

Cyrix? Forget it. High core voltages, hot operating temperatures....just to name some of the problems.

Cheers

[Kev G]

i currently have a cyrix 300mhz. overclocked to 333mhz. i have to say for the money i spent it was worth it. i've overclocked it with no problems (overclocked to 366mhz. unstable) its running at 75mhz bus with 2.8v. which means i don't get much heat. and my system never freezes. also i put in an extra fan which rids of any produced heat. (hardrive, processor etc..)

[scotter]

as I said up above (but for all intents and perposes there really is not to much diff in the performance not that the normal person is going to really see in every day use )
and as for 3D gaming I'll put my AMD K6-2-450
@550mhz up agints any celeron any day of the week and I'll bet you wont know the differance. In Quake 3 I get over 50 FPS with a voodoo3 2000
with most options turned on and thats the same for half life quake 2 and any other big time 3D game
you will see a diff in bench marks but in real life most, in fact all most all people will not see it be couse were only talking a very smal extra amount of time for some applications and faster speeds than a intel for others for the same clock speed chipvunless your doing very very large 3D files FPU intensive files 10meg or larger etc, etc you will not see a diff http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif.
Any way just a little more of my .02 cents worth lol http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by scotter (edited 12-20-1999).]

[dexmax]

I say, go for the K6-3.

I had really bad experiences w/ celerons. I have my own home network of celerons, p2's, a p3, and k6's(2&3). I give celerons more ram than their k6 counterparts since they couldn't just handle what i torture them for.

Although there's no science basis, experience still can be trusted. And scotter is right, an average person won't see the diff. in performance. But an average person can see the diff. when a system can't handle it.

There are avantages and disadvantages. And both have price tags too. So if I were to choose, i'de get the k6-3.

it's your call. good luck.

[ktwebb]

Used them both. Besides the K7, AMD cannot hang. Maybe my "real world" is different. At higher resolutions the K-6 chips choke with all the goodies on. Fine for AMD-Now enhanced games, like Q3 and so on. Beyond that, they blow. There is no legitimate argument about the FPU performance of the K-6 line. If you do any research on the subject, the answers are absolute, so preach on K-6 buds, maybe someone will buy it.

[This message has been edited by ktwebb (edited 12-20-1999).]

[lost1]

Ohhh noooo,
Here we go again http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif

[RobRich]

Interesting fact, the k6 fpu unit can actually perform a SINGLE floating point calculation faster than the p2/3 fpu. The problem is when the k6 does not use a pipelined architecture, meaning that it can not handle MULTIPLE floating point calculations in a very effiecient manner, like the p2/p3/celery. This is true for the k6 and k6-2.

With the k6-3, the full speed level two seriously aids this and many other issues. When the earlier k6 cpu's had to communicate to the l2 cache via the FSB speed, it really choked. Now it freely sends data to the l1 and l2 cache at the operating speed. This leads to extremely improved memory throughput. Calculation time (both integer and floating point) also benifits, since the cpu is no longer waiting for data to process.

I would recommend a k6-3, since its l2 cache speed is independent of the FSB speed. With a k6-2 at low bus speeds, your front side bus can really bottleneck you system. If one does wish to run a k6-2, a 95+ mhz bus (with a 450+ mhz clock speed) is really needed to achieve decent performance, since the chip is
being limited by the FSB.

[gjwilson]

I`ve built a couple of systems of my own and for me it was price that made a difference. A couple of eBay specials...Celeron 400 at $60 a piece and I can`t complain.

[ktwebb]

I'll ammend my post a bit, I have not actually used the K6-3 chip. I am aware of the architecture changes. I can only go by the reviews, posts to boards, and benchmarks on the k6-3. I have not seen one article, post or benchmark that shows the chip to be a competitor with a pentium or celeron in FPU, unless of course the tests are done with a 3d-now enhanced app or game. So information is fine, and it sounds good on paper. Funny thing is, if you look in the mags, or the computer stores, all you see is K6-2's or athlons. Every once in a while you may see a K6-3 for sale. If they were so much better than the k6-2 seems like they would be fazing out the 2. I will say, I am not an Intel drone, and the next PC I buy will be an Athlon, but I would not own any PC with a k6 in it.

[This message has been edited by ktwebb (edited 12-21-1999).]

[bdunn]

the K6-2/366 if you can find one is designed to be clocked at 5.5*66 I have one overclocked to 5.5*83 with no stability problems runs great. 83 is the highest speed on my MB or I would recommend the newer AMD chips.

Never had a problem with AMD chips. I highly recommmend them.