Just a quick question. Since I never really payed attention to the old processor wars...I have a query regarding which of these processors I should utilize. I'm building a computer out of spare parts. I have an AMD K6-2 400Mhz and a PII 350Mhz to choose from in order to build this computer.
Now...the question is: Which one should I use? I'm building this for a friend and...he uses it for strategy games and doesn't want to upgrade...so that is what the rig will be doing most of. So which one should I build it on? The AMD mentioned or the Pentium mentioned?
<b>It is always brave to say what everyone thinks. </b> <i>Georges Duhamel</i>
Hmm. Just another little thing to factor in, but I had a K6-2 350Mhz that would do 475Mhz (95FSB x 5) with no voltage increase - Those chips all had unlocked multipliers AFAIK (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong), whereas the PII chips are all locked so would be harder to overclock.
The K6-2 400 with a Relatively old Socket A HS (IIRC a SoA HSF fits those sockets), should be good for 500Mhz, perhaps with a small voltage bump.
AMD had problems producing higher speed K6-2's most of their production cycle, so most K6-2's wouldn't overclock more than 50-75MHz. Some guys just get lucky.
Standard Socket A and Socket 370 sinks fit Socket 7 fine.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
Guess I must have been lucky then... Like I have with my current CPU. Maybe all my luck gets used up with CPU purchases, which explains why I never win anything!
I ended up giving that chip away to a friend :frown: ... Sadly I only discovered it's overclocking potential <i>after</i> I'd played thru half-life using software rendering (320x240 or something equally horrible).. with the overclock 512x384 was playable, and a vast improvement.
This was in 98 I think, and it's what sparked my interest in hardware really, and lead to me coming here... :smile: .
honestly k6-2's are paper weights. the platforms they run on are about as atable as a drunk monkey on a unicycle. so i woundn't care how much faster it is than the p2 because the time it takes u to reboot when you blue screen will cancel it out.
hmm. Although most of the AMD chipsets back then were never performance kings they were stable, AFAIK. I had a Gigabyte board (GA5AX I think? Can't remember) which had an Ali Chipset and was perfectly stable for at least 6 months. Until I shoved a GeforceDDR card in it, but I think that was a PSU problem or something (with hindsight - I had no idea at the time), either way I upgraded within a couple of weeks and that problem went away...
It was the generation afterwards that the classic Athlon/VIA combination was the bringer of BSOD.
I tried to prove it one way or the other in a scientific fashion, but despite the monkey being drunk, it refused to get on the unicycle :frown: . It did appear quite stable whilst hanging from the lampshade though.
I don't know how he managed his Monkey/unicycle experiment, but I assume he must have either used a video camera or got someone else to hold the mirror. :wink:
I think the Pentium 2 would win since it has a much more powerful FPU. If you look at the THG article, cant remember its exact name, something like '65 CPU's through the ages' it compares all of these and the P2 comes on on top in almost everything.
It really does depend on what progs you are using. Seem to me a lot of games using the Quake 2 engine did great on the K6-2s. Most other games, the 400 still outperformed the P2-350 when you were in-game.