AMD K6-2 333 cpu equivalent to ?

[Rottie]

is it equivalent to Pentium II cpu?

 

[Quentin]

Yes, pretty much so. IIRC they both used SDRAM and usually were in ATX motherboards while the older K6 and Pentium 1 used EDO and usually were in old AT boards.

 

[VirtualLarry]

K6-2 333? Close to a Pentium 233Mhz MMX, perhaps one OC'ed to ~250Mhz. The K6/K6-2, was clock-for-clock slower than the Pentium MMX.
(The K6-3/3+ is the CPU that you are thinking of, that is closer to PII/PIII/early Athlon performance.) For example, software DVD decoding, minum CPU necessary without stuttering, was a 300Mhz PII, or a 500Mhz K6-2. (100Mhz FSB in each case)

 

[3chordcharlie]

K6 had a weak FPU, IIRC, so it really depends on the type of software you're running what it would be close to.

edit - I'm quite sure of this; I had one and it truly sucked for gaming.

 

[mindwreck]

the k6-2 were much slower than a pentium at the same clockspeed. I would say a 200-300 Pentium would outperform it.

I remembered my old 200 mhz pentium mmx running faster than my amd k6-2 300.

 

[CombatChuk]

Things got a little better with the K6-III but not much better

 

[Arcanedeath]

In truth it depended on what app you were runing, for anything that requires FPU / x87 instructions, the K6-2 sucked as it wasn't fully pipelined and pretty much relied on 3dnow! instructions to make up for this... For intager (god I can't spell lol) performance it was as good or better than the P2 / Katami core P3's and it has one of the best branch predictor units seen in a modern X86 processor (better prediction rates than the K7 and even K8 still) so if you want to run office apps it should work great, but if you want to run games or do multimedia stuff like play DVDs it's a dog, performing worse in manny cases than the lowely Pentium MMX @ 233

 

[aronsun]

Yes

 

[Rottie]

I did goggle search and found it was much like Pentium 2....

 

[rogue1979]

The K6-2 has no L2 cache. That's why clock for clock the P2 is considerably faster.

Older software requiring minimum cpu requirements for a Pentium, should still work fine for the K6-2. It does reasonably well on office type applications.

 

[Rottie]

thanks rogue1979 and to those who replied..so I will look for programs that works for my AMD K6-2.

 

[andy nowotny]

about PII 300

 

[Garlic]

wow some of you people really know nothing about classic CPUs.

The k6-2 SMOKES the old Pentium MMX cpus like they're a joke....

Man I remember doing benchmarks back in the day with k6-2s and pentium MMX cpus.

The k6-2 is simple much faster...

 

[Garlic]

Originally posted by: mindwreck
the k6-2 were much slower than a pentium at the same clockspeed. I would say a 200-300 Pentium would outperform it.

I remembered my old 200 mhz pentium mmx running faster than my amd k6-2 300.

Wrong....and you can tell by your post you dont have much experience....

 

[Garlic]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
K6-2 333? Close to a Pentium 233Mhz MMX, perhaps one OC'ed to ~250Mhz. The K6/K6-2, was clock-for-clock slower than the Pentium MMX.
(The K6-3/3+ is the CPU that you are thinking of, that is closer to PII/PIII/early Athlon performance.) For example, software DVD decoding, minum CPU necessary without stuttering, was a 300Mhz PII, or a 500Mhz K6-2. (100Mhz FSB in each case)

Wow, over 6000 posts hu? lol... You must not have been around in the socket 7 days to post something like that....

 

[hans007]

k6-2/333 ran 95mhz bus.

it was i'd say more or less as fast as a p2-300.

the k6-2 basically was faster than the pentium mmx in any way, yes the fpu wasnt quite as fast, but a k6-2 333 would kill a pentium mmx 233 any day of the week regardless.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Garlic

Originally posted by: mindwreck
the k6-2 were much slower than a pentium at the same clockspeed. I would say a 200-300 Pentium would outperform it.

I remembered my old 200 mhz pentium mmx running faster than my amd k6-2 300.

Wrong....and you can tell by your post you dont have much experience....

How about STFU. As if this was really important.

 

[Leper Messiah]

It does have a weak FPU. My CeleronA at 375 out did the K6-2@ 500 in gaming. (this was morrowind with a TNT2 16MB *shudder*)

 

[arcas]

For a long time, I had a K6-2 400 at home and a P2-400 at work. I used both machines for software development and general desktop use (no gaming). Frankly, I couldn't tell much difference between either machine, speedwise.

 

[Jeff7]

The VIA and ALi chipsets for the Socket7 platform just couldn't come close to Intel's chipsets for the P2's. When I went from a P2-300 with a 440-LX based motherboard (Supermicro P6SLA), to a K6-3 400, with some Epox board, using VIA's MVP chipset, I thought something was horribly wrong. Games that played smoothly before were now around 15fps. The chipset, or maybe the drivers, were just not all that good. Unfortunate, as that 3-level cache system seemed like it could have done a good bit better.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Garlic
wow some of you people really know nothing about classic CPUs.
The k6-2 SMOKES the old Pentium MMX cpus like they're a joke....
Man I remember doing benchmarks back in the day with k6-2s and pentium MMX cpus.
The k6-2 is simple much faster...

Have you run them side-by-side? I have, the P-MMX was faster, clock-for-clock, on non-3DNow apps, and the K6-2 was obviously faster on the 3DNow apps. The biggest difference was generally in the FSB speeds and L2 cache on the mobo. If you're making your claim, based on a comparison between a P-MMX 233Mhz system running on 66Mhz EDO memory, vs. a K6-2 system running on 100Mhz SDR, then that's not a valid comparison. The system running on 100Mhz SDR would win over the other regardless.