| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 50447 | 2004-10-20 22:54:00 | Amd V Intell | drb1 (4492) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 283215 | 2004-10-21 01:54:00 | >the AMD's sucked big time back then Utter rubbish! Any of the AMD CPUs with 3d Now technology were at least equal to Intells. The only reason the PIII was possibly better is that it was newer technology. |
POTUS (5276) | ||
| 283216 | 2004-10-21 01:56:00 | > Only beause you asked, That'll teach me! |
POTUS (5276) | ||
| 283217 | 2004-10-21 02:08:00 | >The only reason the PIII was possibly better is that it was newer technology. Care to illiterate what you mean by "newer technology" and how it made the P3 perform better? Your statements a lil vague and id be keen to know what you mean by "newer technology". In my opinion back in the old P3 days all the technology you needed was a AGP slot, support for SD-RAM and a semi decent chipset. Seeing as K6-2's used socket 7, i would have thought that performance from chipset would have been pretty solid, SD-RAM and AGP should also have been avaliable. |
Pete O'Neil (250) | ||
| 283218 | 2004-10-21 02:38:00 | A 500mhz PIII was at the beginning of the PIII cycle whereas a 500mhz K6 was at the end of the Socket 7s life. So you can't really compare the two fairly. From memory, when the PIII 500 was released the cost was around $300, at that time you could buy a K6 500 for around $150. The K6-3 compared favourably with the PII at that time, certain;y much better than the Celeron. I don't think the Duron had been released then. There were some very good Super Socket 7 boards that supported the K6-3 series. |
POTUS (5276) | ||
| 283219 | 2004-10-21 02:49:00 | > A 500mhz PIII was at the beginning of the PIII cycle > whereas a 500mhz K6 was at the end of the Socket 7s > life. So you can't really compare the two fairly. The same applies to the original AthlonXP and the P4, people love to compare the highly scalable Northwood P4's when the were first released to the aging AthlonXP, it does happen whether its fair or not. The same can now be said for the Athlon64 and the P4. The P4 is starting to hit the ceiling in term of its scalabitily whereas the Athlon64 is just starting to mature. The K6-2 was a good chip, you need to remember that up until Intel released the original Pentium, AMD were just ripping off their 486. AMD had to relearn how to design processors. But the fact of the matter is that the K6-2 was easily out performed by the P3. |
Pete O'Neil (250) | ||
| 283220 | 2004-10-21 02:53:00 | > The only reason the PIII was possibly better is that it was newer technology. > > K6-2 was easily out performed by the P3. erm... isn't that what I said? |
POTUS (5276) | ||
| 283221 | 2004-10-21 08:09:00 | >Utter rubbish ! Any of the AMD CPUs with 3d Now technology were at least equal to Intells but which intells ! ! ! they peformed as good (mayby better) than the celerons in office apps and where cheaper . however they where always out performed by the p2 (p3 where not advialable at the time) exspecially in 3D games . however the celerons where very overclockable :) and the k6-2 wasn't . also the intels had the excellent 440BX chipset which was one of the best reasons to have an intel at the time . |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||