K6 3-400 or K6 2-550

[jad1097]

I currently have a k6 3-400 and I was wondering since it will not overclock much if I would notice much of a difference upgrading to a k6 2-533 or 550. Of course I would oc it as much as possible.

[akaBruno]

Go for the K6-2 Jad. Overclock it, fry three for breakfast and have one for dinner. That equals the price of the miniscule performance increase you'd see w/the K6-3. I'll show ya stats that prove the ability of the K6-2 to perform as well. I've yet to see K-3 stats to compromise them to the point value, meaning bang for the buck.

[jad1097]

I agree but it it worth upgrading from a K6 3-400 to a K6 2-550?

I know the 3-400 PR is like a 2-500 or more but would a 2-550 oc'ed be worth the hassle and money? I paid the same for my mobo (replaced cause I did not like) and k6 3-400 for what a 3-400 goes for now, 8 months ago.


**** price watch just changed their **** format again! And I do not like it!!!!!

[wtp]

if you want to overclock to higher speeds, get the K6-450, that's pretty cheap and good in overclocking. Here, check the speeds this CPU has achieved www.overclockers.com (http://www.overclockers.com)

wtp

[wtp]

but... again, if you have the guts to use peltiers, go with the K6-2 550. www.overclockers.com (http://www.overclockers.com) http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

wtp http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[otheos]

I'd say, keep what you got, the K6-3 is a good chip and you'll notice little if any difference. I know people whou would pay lots of money to get a K6-3 rather than a cheap k6-2 550.

My advise? Sell the K6-3 for $100+ and get a K6-2 500 for $50 and take the lady out for lunch with the rest! This way, you'll both be happy!

[jad1097]

wtp, From what I understand a pelter is out of the question with Win2000.

otheos I was thinking the same exact thing.

I have another ss7 mobo so I may just build me another box based on the 533-550 if I can get it to 600. And if I don't like it I could sell it.

[dexmax]

i think you should keep it. i don't think you would notice the difference. just build yourself a new box, and sell the oldie.

call me crazy, but i won't sell it--if i were you. i'de keep it, and experiment. but don't listen to my last words, its impractical, and its just me.

[jad1097]

No CelronII for me. But I will get an Athlon this fall well we will see what happens then, I do know it won't be the latest and greatest.

I think I will build a K6 2 for now since I already have a mobo & other parts laying around. It should not cost too much I figure about $200 + monitor.

It sure would make the ole' lady happy to have her own! Of course I could set up the 486 for her, I could just here her now SMACK! You use that slow POS you anus!


Thanks everyone for your opinions.

[Dave2]

The K6 3 400 is about as fast as a K6 2 500 so that means you won't see any difference in frame rates. That's like upgrading from a K6-2 500 to a K6 2 550. If you really want a cheap upgrade and noticably faster performance then upgrade to a Celeron II 533 and the new Asus CUBX motherboard.

[Dave2]

I second that. Keep that K6-3 system since would won't get much money off it. Who knows, you probably could use a backup system.

[jkittlesen]

Ihave a k6-3-450 o/ced to 475 that's all she'll do.Good chip but it's day is passed. It ain't worth Jack Squat on resell, so keep as backup and get the Celeron 2.

[sunofwolf]

I am running a k3 amd 400 And would like more speed but dont forget of computer parts Hard drive speed helps a lot get a new drive that goes at 7200 and has the 66mb controler working my computer took off also get rid of winmodems, power eating junk cheap sound cards get more memory at least 128mb too me i think chip sp is a bit oversold.

[Holger Bettenbühl]

I have testet in same System with the following Environment:
BaseClock=100 MHz
128 MB SD-Ram (PC133/6nSec)
Chipset = VIA MVP3

K6-2, 550 MHz, ClockMul=5.5
Norton-System-Index = 173

K6-3, 400 MHz, ClockMul=4
Norton-System-Index = 216

I think, this is the Answer of our Questions!

PS: Normally, you CANT overclocking a K6-3 CPU!!! You must have very very much luck for found a K6-3 CPU with a Clock-Reserve > 5%.

[jad1097]

Thanks Holger that is very intresting.

[Win_98]

Holger, the NSI is inaccurate at benchmarking have you try using other benchmark such as sandra 2000.
Remember the differences is K6-2 have no full speed level 2 cache so it could be 50mhz difference?

So K6-550 is like K6 III 500?
I think you will get better performance
if you disable onboard 1M cache for K6 III
because it slow it down?
The funny thing is Celeron at 66mhz bus
366mhz has 220m/sec memory bus
but K6 III 450 is only
142m/sec

[jad1097]

WIn_98 DO NOT START THIS ***** AGAIN! You clearly have no idea of what you are saying!

First off the K6 3-500 never hit the market! Second the strong point of the K6 3in the L3 cache( or having the L2 cache on chip) , since you can not seem to comprehend this I will not explain it since it has already been explained to you.

I was trying to be nice to you but you really are stressing my limits. Shall I be rude again and make you leave for another few weeks? Please do not make me be rude.


Please for my sake re-read this thread. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/Forum3/HTML/006560.html

I will not say what an ignorant imbecile I think you are again. Maybe I am incorrect and you just lack the skills required to comprehend how a computer functions. But **** man don't act like you know what you are saying when you do not have any idea of what you are saying.

I think RobRich summed this whole thing up nicely by saying. If I remember, your 350 is a socket7 Cyrix cpu. The socket7 platform places the L2 cache on the motherboard, not the cpu (expect for k6-3). This means that the L2 is limited to running at the Front Side Bus speed, which is commonly 100mhz. This means that overall caching is severely limted in throughput. The k6-3 was the only socket7 cpu to overcome this issue. It has a 256kb on-die full speed L2 cache, and uses the motherboard's cache as L3. The lack of a high speed cache architecture is one of the larget reasons for the abandonment of the super7 platform. From the previous link I posted.



[This message has been edited by jad1097 (edited 06-15-2000).]

[wtp]

win98 also backs up the idea of putting thermal paste on the pad..

wtp

[Win_98]

What are you guy?
Gangster?
Say as you pleases?
Remember I didnt start **** you did.
I was just trying to help and offer a suggestion and you seem to alway take it the wrong way sheesh for once
dont I get any appreciation for trying?!?
If you dont like me then you walk yourway and I walk my way and we have no problem.
I feel like an idiot I really do for someone to hate me for trying to help.
I am sad to see you guy get upset so easily.
And you know you guy are off topic and geting personal as usual. Who fault is it?

"WIn_98 DO NOT START THIS ***** AGAIN! You clearly have no idea of what you are saying!"
Actually I do know what I am talking about!
You don't...
You're just angry for the fact that you think I'm wrong.
Whatever.
Good Day.

"I will not say what an ignorant imbecile I think you are again. Maybe I am incorrect and you just lack the skills required to comprehend how a computer functions. But **** man don't act like you know what you are saying when you do not have any idea of what you are saying."
Again this a flaming message and I feel the heat coming from ya like you're angry and it just get worst and worst.
I know you think Im the dumbest person to be alive but I just have to disagree.
How is it insulting when all I said is 550 is same as K6 III 500, you must be out of your mind or something take thing way too seriously like lighten up man.
BTW: The K6-3 sucks, it was failure
it too expensive and it never made past
450mhz, it obsolete now so why bother bring up how good it is. It isnt.
K6-3 can kiss my **** any day hehe
Never heard of it, came out and became exinct almost right away.
You're just too proud of you're K6 III 400mhz thinking it faster then K6-2 550mhz
1st cache is more important then level 2 cache without level 1 cache your cpu perform like **** already tried and I betcha didnt know that.
So instead of getting angry maybe you should try to backup what you say is right?!?
All I see is bark and no talk.


[This message has been edited by Win_98 (edited 06-16-2000).]

[krusty the klown]

I think you will get better performance if you disable onboard 1M cache for K6 III because it slow it down?

You don't (remove the thermal pad), just leave it there and apply (thermal) compound in conjunction with pad for better
transfer.

Actually I do know what I am talking about!

???

[Win_98]

Wonderful, another person who dislike me.
It make me feel so good.
You guy act like gangster.
Crusty the clown
you take that back
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you will get better performance if you disable onboard 1M cache for K6 III because it slow it down?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't (remove the thermal pad), just leave it there and apply (thermal) compound in conjunction with pad for better
transfer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I do know what I am talking about!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

???
You act like smart alex I dont appreciate this.
Like **** out man this isnt between me and you!
I understand you trying to get me kick out of here for good. You're trying too **** hard and that really beginning to irritate me.
Or maybe klusty the clown is also
jad1097?!?
You guy are so alike and say the same thing.
Scroll up to the top and see who started
flaming who in the first place?!?!?!
Do you get the picture now?!?
Well?!?!?
Please stop this, I didnt do anything wrong.
It a complete waste of my time, and bandwidth
and everyone who read this too so think about it.
You know this is so lame we like a bunch of children I remember it was this bad when I was only 5 years old.
Anyway i got to go to sleep now as I am wasting much of my valueable time contributing to someone who have no appreciation for anyhing.


[This message has been edited by Win_98 (edited 06-16-2000).]

[krusty the klown]

Err... If I post something and someone says 'that's wrong, because....whatever' fine!, not one person knows everything and I'm here to learn and, if I can, help others out.

Having been told that I got something wrong, I do not continue to offer my original wrong advice to others.

If I did, I would understand if people got
p!ssed off with me.

EDIT: I am NOT trying to get anyone kicked off this board!!!! (including myself http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif )

[This message has been edited by krusty the klown (edited 06-16-2000).]

[Variable]

Hey I don't want to get in the middle of your fight but I have to say that it would be better if you don't disable the L3 Cache (or any cache) because it really gives you a performance boost (it's the same as with RAM if you have 128MB you won't run your PC with 64MB).
And as far as I know (and it shows so on the AMD website) there will be a K6-3 500MHz (or at least a K6-3+ 500MHz).

(This information was only provided to cool you guys of and not to provoke anybody ;-)

[Win_98]

Thank for trying man.
Im usually pretty nice you know when someone is more reasonable about it.

It just my opinion, remember I said I think
disabling level 3 cache for K6 III
may improve performance as I dont have one to test it out to confirm it.
I was thinking about a celeron that perform better then K6 III at same speed so that gave me ideas as it has half as much level 2 cache and no level 3 cache which only run at 100mhz at best and is a turtle when compared to 128 cache full speed at 500mhz.
It affect memory performance and cpu performance to to some degree but not a whole alot like 400 = 550+mhz because of 256K level 2 cache full speed?!?!
This is so technical that no one really understand and it just tend to heat thing up when discussing about it.
Because we all think different thing about it.
Level 3 cache for K6-3 maybe slowing it down remember they go from level 1 cache first, then level 2,
then 3 which is even slower.
One of the reason why AMD decided to discontinue K6-III and go Athlon instead and drop socket 7 board. K6-III is not so good.
Lastly I just want to work thing out and maybe in the end come to a conclusion by solving it together as they are a mystery.

[nvksmt]

The reason a Celeron is faster is because of the much better floating point (FPU) unit. AMD K6 series are good for integer but NOT floating point and thats why the celeron beats it.

Also, you say L2 is not as important as L1, thats true, but L2 is VERY VERY important. Although you don't necessarily need much, but look at the performance of the 1st celerons without it. They sucked.

Oh, also, they also discontinued the K6-3 because they couldn't clock them higher, notice they wont overclock? Well disable the L2 cache and they will, same goes for celerons, the ondie cache is usually whats holding back the speed on the chip. And the K6-3 can just not go reliably higher than 450 MHz (or maybe a few can, but not enough to sell).

And you're right, the K6-3 isnt so good, but it would in *real life* testing like Q3, perform better than a K6-2 500 and maybe equal to a K6-2 550.

[This message has been edited by nvksmt (edited 06-16-2000).]

[This message has been edited by nvksmt (edited 06-16-2000).]

[Variable]

Also the celeron has a different layout (0,18 micron) and different arranged transistors. (It's like comparing to different cars with the same hp although the hp are the same one is still faster if it has more vents or cylinders)So although the celeron runs at the same MHz speed it still is faster because it is build different.
And you are right that each Level of cache gets slower but they are still (even L3 cache) faster than the RAM and everything else in you system (only DDR RAM and SGRAM might beat the old L3 cache).

You have to see that's why they always have so little Cache because it's so fast and so god **** expensive.
I just bought a new socket 7 Mobo with 2MB Cache on it and the price difference to the 1 MB version was 30$ !!!! (30$ for one MB !!! so 128 MB (average RAMsize nowadays) would cost 3840 $ !!!!).

And all the L2 and L3 cache do is store those information from the RAM that gets used more often and if it's cached those things run faster. So if it's stored in the L2 cache it runs at CPU speed while those in the L3 cache run at 100 MHz. The RAM even if it runs at 100 MHz is handled different by the CPU and the mobo controllers and so is slower.

So get as much L1 L2 and L3 cache you can get for it will speed up your machine !!!!!

[Variable]

You can even compare L3 cache to RAM and a HD. Why need RAM you have all the info stored on the HD??
But the RAM is much much much faster than the HD and so it stores the info currently used (you could store this on the HD but that is sloooooowwww). And that's the same with the L3: the L3 speeds up the RAM, the L2 cache speeds up the L3 and the RAM and the L1 cache speeds up the CPU.

[Dputiger]

I've read this through and I'm a little confused, but this is what makes sense to me: It NEVER pays to turn off cache--and here's why?

In all modern processors that I'm aware of, the L1 and L2 caches are running faster than RAM which, in turn, is running faster than the hard drive. When data is being fed to the processor and it needs places to store info it pays to put it in the fastest place it can be put--i.e., L1 or L2 cache. True, putting the cache on die or using MORE cache will help boost speed, as does running the cache at full processor-speed--but it makes no sense to just remove them.

The final proof of this is electrical. It's a longer distance from the CPU to the RAM than it is from the CPU to the L2 or L1 cache. More distance=greater resistance=greater heat=slower access time. Part of the reason L1 and L2 cache are faster than RAM is simply because their closer to the CPU!

[Variable]

Yeah right!
I couldn't have put it better.
But it's not only the longer distance but the controllers that control the buses to the cache, RAM, HD.
(Cache has a higher priority/faster chip than RAM which has a faster chip/priority than HD)

[jad1097]

Win first off I do not dislike you. Second you are wrong RE-READ THIS THREAD! (http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/Forum3/HTML/006560.html) The argument for the use of cache was made there and there is absolutely no reason to have this discussion again.
The reason I think you are ignorant is that you just do not seem to learn, I apologize if my words offend you but bro get it through your head would you please. Read it two or three times if need be, maybe then you will be able to comprehend how and what cache does.


Also the AMD K6 3-500 never did and never will go into major production. They did release a K6 3-500+ but it is a mobile processor.

"Gangster?" Never have been and never will be, but you could never take the street out of me because of where and how I grew up. You really do not need to know my life story, if you wish too I could e-mail it to you http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif.

[davidk]

i have a k6-3 450 and m/b with 2mb cache.
It is very fast in windows (benchmarks higher than many peoples P3-550's) and in games it gets faster frame rates than my friends equaly clocked celeron BUT the frame rates fall a lot lower at times of high pressure (eg screen covered with blood in quake3) because of K6 series bad floating point. i have to say though it is a good processor but it was overpriced and targeted at business users not gamers.

[neo_otyugh]

for most business and server applications a k6-3 will outperform most similarly clocked processors, a celeron has good fpu, but with low cache it is best suited for the casual user or gamer (no need for a lot of cache there). I have a friend that has a k6-3 400 that outperformed my k6-2 400@475 and my celeron 400@450. admittedly the 825 mhz celeron i have now outperfoms his system. Ihave tried disabling cache on the k4-2 400 system for higher speeds....my k6 233 was faster than it.
if you have a k6-3 hang on to it, they are great pocessors. If i had one i would hold out for something that ran faster than 600 to see a real improvement.

[nvksmt]

Variable says "celeron has a different layout (0,18 micron) "

True, but older (533 and down) have 0.25 micron. And 533A and up have 0.18 micron (those based on the FC PGA coppermine).

[Variable]

It's not only the distance between the transistors (0,25 or o,18 µ) but the whole chip-architekture.

[Variable]

YOU WILL NOT GAIN SPEED AND PERFORMANCE IF YOU DISABLE CACHE!!!!

neo_otyugh: First of the K6-2 400 will always always always be faster than a K6 233.
It has a higher FSB, better architekture (0,35µ <=> 0,25µ), more MHz, no 3DNOW (only regular MMX) etc!

IT IS FASTER!!!!

You will not gain anything disabling the K6-2 L1 Cache (The K6-2 DOES NOT HAVE AN INTERNAL L2 CACHE!!!!) THEY BOTH HAVE 64 KB L1 CACHE !!!!
And why do you think they offer (or did offer) 256KB Pipeline Burst Cache Modules for older Mobos for Sale?? To slow down those PCs even more???? How stup!"§$%id are you?? Do you think anybody buys those modules to slow his PC down???

PS: If you wanna disable your cache. Go ahead do it and be the laughingstock of the board. Personally I think you guys are great!Because although CPUs are getting faster and faster you people make your systems slower and slower.
So programmers are forced to write better (faster) code for your slow systems and people with fast but old systems (like me) will benefit from you because the software will take advantadge of everything we have. So go ahead please disable all your cache.

[Win_98]

I am happy that we can work this out in a more civilized manner. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
Level 2 cache full speed is much much better then onboard cache is as fast as level 1 cache? it mirrors level 1 so help the cpu throughtput speed overall.
So celeron is like having 128K cache level 1 cache right because both level 1 and 2 run at core speed and that is amazing. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
Both are just as important, so um no wonder why I see horrible performance regardless how fast K6-2 is could be 1000mhz and perform just as well as Celeron 600mhz or
PIII 600mhz.
I think on my next upgrade I will go Celeron
cause it cheapest and overclock better then Athlon and easier to overclock without spending 55-80 buck more for a gold finger.
That why I only see very little drop in performance when I disable external cache because it so slow.
Same reason when I upgraded my MII333 to K6-2 550 I dont notice any speed difference
except 83mhz FSB to 100FSB is the reason why I did it.
I maybe wrong about K6-2 550 being faster
then K6-III 400
Well don't blame me, blame sisoft sandra
http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
You're right keep your K6 III and go athlon or celeron. Furget K6-2 it like a Celeron with no 2nd level cache. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
Reason why they can sell it so cheap!
Remember you alway get what you paid for. Its a poor man's cpu.
BTW: If you disable level 1 cache, it also disable level 2 cache because level 1 is very important but why would anyone want to do that hehe? Just to see the performance
differences. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[sunofwolf]

Used K 3 400 only $500. k3 400 rule the world!