Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need K6-2 / III benchmark info QUICK...HELP!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 18, 2001 12:05:38 AM

I have a choice of 2 free CPU's to build a system for a younger brother.
I have also a free 503+ w/1MB.

Which is faster overclocked ???

A K6-2 500

or a K6-3 400 (not .18)????

Thanks guys!


DREW
May 18, 2001 2:08:07 AM

the K6 2 is faster at rendering, games, video encoding, etc.
the K6 III may have slightly better Windows performance in general, but I used my K6 2 @ 500, I compared it to my K6 III+(which is identical to the K6 III except smaller) at all speeds. the K6 III had a little better memory bandwidth on benchmarks, even running 100mhz slower, but I'd take an extra 100mhz processor speed over that anyday.

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
May 18, 2001 3:09:42 AM

I disagree, the k6-3 is a much better chip. It will outperform the k6-2 on almost all apps even at a lower clock. The reason being that it has an additional 256 l2 chace on chip. On FPU intensive apps, the k6-2 may pperform slighlty better do to its higher clock speed, but overall the k6-3 is your best bet. Not only that, it is worth more.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 18, 2001 3:10:27 AM

Niether are great overclockers.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
May 18, 2001 3:43:12 AM

it depends entirely on what you do with it.
K6III 400 works better in windows and such, K6 2 500 works better in most games.
raw clock speed matters at that low speed.
as far as the overclocking, my K6 2 450 clocked all the way to 570 stable with the oem heatsink. I ran it at 550 most of the time, I had ONE game that wouldn't run @ 570, I eventually clocked it to 500 just because I got nervous.
the original K6 III is a poor overclocker, thats for sure.

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
May 18, 2001 4:16:33 AM

My experainces have shown just the opposite, the k6-3 almost always outperformed the k6-2's in games, alas, them dyas are long gone ( thank god ). Your right though the k6-3's were lousy overclockers but the k6-3+'s were pretty good.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 18, 2001 4:18:40 AM

A k6-III 400 is much faster than a K6-2 500.

In Norton Systemworks CPU sysmark:

the K6-2 500 gets anywhere from 150 to 180. (depends on 512K or 1 megabyte L2 cache memory on motherboard)

the K6-III 400 gets about 220 (similar to a pentium 2 400)

I have tested other systems with Sysmark for comparison only:

Pentium 120 gets 20
Pentium 233 gets 40 - 60
K6-2 300 gets 120 (100 Mhz FSB)
Pentium-3 933 gets 380 to 440.

I hope this helps.
May 18, 2001 5:04:39 AM

my K6III+ overclocked by a nice 150Mhz, did well.
at stock speed of 450 it was a little slower than my 550 on Quake II, Quake III and Aliens vs Predator.
games love clockspeed and your milage may vary.

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
a b à CPUs
May 18, 2001 5:27:25 AM

Well, as long as everyone is going back and forth on the issue, my K6-III outperformed every K6-2 I've ever owned, by a significant amount, at the same clock speeds. AT least a 15% difference clock for clock.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine
May 20, 2001 1:35:57 AM

Gday i had K6-2 450 & a K6-3 450,ufortunatly i no longer have the bench marks,But i can tell u that with a V2 12meg that the K6 3 creamed the K6 2 on all bench marks,Sisoft,Wintune & 3d Mark 2000.
May 20, 2001 6:40:14 AM

agreed, at the same speed the K6III is faster than the K6 2, hell, I'll even spot the K6 2 50Mhz, but at 100mhz difference, I have to give it to the K6 2.

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
May 20, 2001 5:38:56 PM

if you can find a K6-2+ or a K6-3+, they over clock better alot better plus they run at 2.0 votage. There are some people able to get this processors up to around 650 to 662 mhz.
May 20, 2001 8:26:18 PM

I looked at amd's site and it says the k6-3 has a 100mhz clock. I had a k6-3 400 and a k6-2 500 and the k6-3 was faster for games. I ran both of them at their stock speed
i never tried to overclock them. I had 2 voodoo2 1000s in sli with a asus p5a mb for the k6-3 and k6-2. When i had my current Voodoo3 1000 agp in the k6-3 it ran great. I would use the k6-3.

BAN Tbirdinside, and AMDmeltdown
May 21, 2001 2:43:02 AM

Yes but the k6-3+'s are not always compatable you need to check first.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
May 21, 2001 10:41:28 AM

I have both, well my kid has a k6-2 500 @ 550, I have a k6-3 450 in my spare system- it KICKS the k6-2 550, they both on the same board (Gigabyte 5ax), the k6-3 has more ram, but even before it still outperformed the k6-2.LOL you think I'd have given my kid the better of the two??

Next time you wave - use all your fingers
!