K62 500 vs. K63 400

Can anyone reference a review that would lead to the best choice between a K62 500 and a K63 400?

11 answers Last reply
More about tomshardware
  1. Get the K6-3! It will b faster. As it has 256k OnDie Cache
  2. Thanks. That's what I figured but wanted some feedback.

  3. I am happy with my K6-3 400. It performs well for a low end processor. Mine is the original K6-3 however, the new ones are probably even better.

    "Water-Cooled CPU Runner"
  4. K6-3's are faster in all benchmarks except raw FPU power. this is do to the fact that fpu is very dependent on the mhz of the cpu. what motherboard do you have? If your board will support it your best choice is the k6III+ which is cheaper and faster than the k6-3 ( many run as high as 600 mhz)

    A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
  5. Get k6-3 an O/c it ..to 500 .... it works.

    -<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>
  6. be warned the k6-3 is not very overclocker freindly however the k6 III + is.

    A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
  7. Go for the K6-III 400MHz. This has full speed on-die cache, and was the first processor to include this feature. The Athlons and P3 Coppermine chips copied the idea!

    I would say the K6-III will be faster for most things. However, remember, for some apps, memory is important, while for others, megahurtz is important. The K6-3 has a superior internal archatecture, however, so I'd go for it every time. Note, there is now a K6-2+ chip available which includes 128Kb of on-die cache, as opposed to 256Kb on the K6-III. Also, there is a K6-III+ which is the same as a K6-III but has PowerNow! (for laptops etc.)

    I have had some difficulty finding these chips in Europe, and could not find the K6-III anywhere last month, only the K6-2. I don't know the situation in the states.

    I'd also say that you could probably quite easily overclock a K6-III 400MHz to 450MHz or higher, because I don't (think) the chip is multiplier-locked.
  8. The K63 wasn't the first to include the on-die cache. It was the celeron-a (aka CeleronPPGA370 - the first socket 370).
    But,regarding the original post, the K62 500 is almost totally obsolete now, and the K63 400 costs more than a Duron-700 in New Zealand - if you HAVE to keep your MB, go for the K63, but i strongly reccomend you upgrade to a new Socket-A motherboard - it will give you HUGE upgrade potential (amd duron/athlon 600mhz-1200mhz!!!!).

    -THEKEIT 2000-
  9. I am such a fool. I tend to selectivly forget details like that. But hey - you are wrong too, it was the Pentium Pro, non?
  10. aahaa you both have been swambuzzled by someone as you are both wrong. I believe the actual first processor to have on-die L2 cache was not the 300A PPGA 370 or the PPRO.. it was the 300A SLOT 1.. tisk tisk ..we had slot 1 mendocino cores for a long time before PPGA aaaand the L2 cache on the Pro was not on-die.. but was a seperate chip that was integrated with the CPU..and not a part of the die.. it was staggered and matched special so that it wouldn't slip in turn 4 he he. The special matching and staggering was very difficult and thus the ultimate demise of the PPro line.. and a great paper weight in the making.. that and it sucked at 16 bit code. I was thinking it was the mobile Celeron at 266 in on-die cache that was first, but after looking at the spec updates, I seriously doubt that. Nope the slot 1 300A was first.
  11. I've embarassed myself twice now, so I'll bow to your superior knowledge. I've been so drunk on xmas sherry that computers have kinda gone all wobbly. Maybe I'll feel better my August :)
Ask a new question

Read More