Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Thanks for answering my last Q, Now..K6III VS 300A

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 18, 2001 5:33:11 PM

I had a choice between a K6-III 400 and a K6-2 500 and with your help I will keep the K6-III (both CPU's are free but I am only being given 1).
Now I have a BH-6/300A that overclocks to 450 (what I was running before my last upgrade).

Which is faster for gaming?

K6-III 400 OR 300A overclocked to 450?????

I will either build up one or the other depending on your thoughts. The other gets scrapped. System will go in living rm as my home made TIVO box.

Thanks !!


DREW

More about : answering k6iii 300a

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 18, 2001 6:15:16 PM

I think the K6 III would be the choice..

it has tri level cache..
hmmmm

id take the K6-III

--call it what you wish, with this machine I can make mercury flow in 3 directions at once--
May 18, 2001 8:51:32 PM

I would go with the 300a @ 450. The Celeron FPU is far superior to the one in the K6 II and III, and will make the difference in gaming.

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
May 18, 2001 9:08:31 PM

in most situations the L3 cache on the K6IIIs is a hamperance, not an improvement.
the L3 adds no more bandwidth than the L2 on die and it adds latency.
performance is often increased by DISABLING the L3 cache.
300A clocked up will have better fpu performance, I had to clock my K6's to 550 to match the performance of a Celeron 466 in FPU intensive apps, notably games.
if your 300A will hit 450 you'll beat everything else on your list, the exception being the K6 2 @ 500 will encode video faster.

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
May 18, 2001 10:01:46 PM

74Merc,

You have been a great help THANKS!

Question, I said in another post I had an option between the K6III @ 400 and a K6-2 500.

Between both of these is the 300A @ 454 (actually 464 w/turbo) still better?

DREW
May 18, 2001 10:05:36 PM

<font color=red>in most situations the L3 cache on the K6IIIs is a hamperance, not an improvement.
the L3 adds no more bandwidth than the L2 on die and it adds latency.
performance is often increased by DISABLING the L3 cache.</font color=red>

I really don't know where you get your information from. It not all about bandwith ( the latest catch phrase). The additional 256 level two cache reaps good performance returns over the k6-2 for any processing that requires more than 64k of memory. This is alot! When the k6-2 uses its 64 k level one cache and has to now use system memory it is a major slowdown going to a 100 mhz transfer, meanwhile the k6-3 is crunching numbers while addressing its memory at 400 mhz. if you doubt this run winbench and compare the two. Now as for pure fpu performance the k6 series scales according to frequency. As for being a hinderance, I can't see how the l2 full speed cache can induce any more latency than the SDRAM at 100 mhz. I built well over 20 machines ( a year ago) using the k6-2s and the k6-3's on an msi motherboard ms-5182. The k6-3's offerd a considerable boost in total system performance compared to the k6-2's.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
May 18, 2001 10:15:01 PM

The celeron overclocked to 450 will be the better choice of all three so far for gaming by far.
The Intel processor has a much better FPU in it then the k6 series of CPU's and you also get a much better chipset in the motherboard as well. the only applications that a k6-3 450 would be better in would be a few business applications and that is it.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
May 18, 2001 10:19:50 PM

It's reasons like this that I have this site bookmarked.

You guys are great!!

Thanks for all the info!, it really helped.

Now I have a 503+ w/1MB and a K6-III 400 for sale. Any takers??


DREW

DREW
a b à CPUs
May 18, 2001 10:26:03 PM

I'll give you $50 for both plus shipping.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine
May 18, 2001 11:35:36 PM

You need to back off and read my post again.

"in most situations the <b>L3</b> cache on the K6IIIs is a hamperance, not an improvement."

L3. On the motherboard. running something like 300mhz SLOWER.

"the L3 adds no more bandwidth than the L2 on die and it adds latency."

since it runs 300mhz SLOWER. The L2 on the K6 III was a big boost in performance, the L3 on the motherboard was NO LONGER NEEDED.

"performance is often increased by DISABLING the L3 cache."
you say you don't know where I get my information.
I get my information from MY OWN DAMN COMPUTER.
Sis530 chipset, extremely poor memory bandwidth, in the 68MBps range. the K6III boosted it to around 84MBps. Disabling the L3 brought it up to 96MBps.
whats that, like a 12% improvement?
the tri level cache is useless. the L2 on die is awesome, the third level of cache on the motherboard adds latency, which slows system performance.

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
May 18, 2001 11:51:12 PM

I apologize I misread your statement. When you said the l3 cache on the k6-3 I thought you refering to the l2 cache. Your statement had me confused as for the l3 cache is not on the k6-3 it is on the motherboard.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
May 18, 2001 11:55:44 PM

s'cool.
thats what I figured, just wanna make sure...

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
May 19, 2001 12:06:56 AM

Ok now that things have cooled down a bit :)  Yes you get memory bandwith with l3 disabled but lower performance as well. Please read multiple post regarding this issue:
<A HREF="http://www.amdzone.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=13&t..." target="_new">http://www.amdzone.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=13&t...;/A>
<A HREF="http://www.amdzone.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=13&t..." target="_new">http://www.amdzone.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=13&t...;/A>



A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
May 19, 2001 12:15:04 AM

aiight.
I'll fool around with it some, but with my system, it ran MUCH faster without the L3, Aliens vs Predator ran much smoother, Quake III was faster, etc...

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
May 19, 2001 12:48:24 AM

And it very well maybe with your system what you say holds true, however, a blanket statement applying to all systems as you can see can be disputed. That is my point in posting the threads I linked to for as you can see this is not always the case. In case other people might be reading this thread they might want to be aware of that. Around about the time the k6-3+'s came into being we played around alot with the l3 enabled vs. disabled issue. We did find that MVP3 chipsets did seem to overclock better with the l3 disabled, but only rarely were we able to make up the performance drop via overclocking with the l3 disabled. Also, The actual amount of l3 cache on the motherboard has alot to do with it as well as the 256 l2 cache is duplicated in the 512 l3 cache thus only leaving an effective 256 of l3. But, when the motherboards l3 was either 1 or 2 megs disabling it would cause a sizable performance hit. Remember, the l3 on the motherboard is dedicated to the CPU, while if disabled the processor has to turn to the system ram instead which is shared wioth other devices as well.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
May 19, 2001 12:58:55 AM

that makes sense.
Most boards I deal with(have dealt with) run 512K of L2(would be L3 in the case of the K6IIIs).
I can't see much of a way an extra 256K could help, which you did verify, now a 1Mb L3 would improve it, yes, 2M even more so, assuming its quality SRAM.
some boards I've used the L2 was simply useless. Cheap SRAM with high latency, defeats the purpose of the cache.

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
!