Which is Faster? Celeron 600MHz vs K6-2 550

[TechKnight]

Intel Celeron 600MHz Socket 370 versus AMD K6-2 550

 

[undeclared]

the celery is hands down faster

I had a k6-2 500 my bro had a celeron 300a oc'd to 464 it beat the crap out of mine

 

[TechKnight]

yeah i'd figured that since the celeron 600 uses a newer socket (370) versus the old socket 7. i'm just trying to determine which system gets 256mb of ram and 192mb of ram

 

[Cheex]

Celeron wins easy.

:thumbsup:

 

[Quiksilver]

I didn't think I would ever say this but in this case the celeron is on top.

 

[nonameo]

Well, you didn't specify what you were doing, but I think the celeron will probably be faster anyways. At least faster in anything that matters(IOW, not office or synthetics)

 

[CrystalBay]

For FPU apps the the celery but for office apps ,I'd go the other way ,except for the shity Via chipset

 

[alcoholbob]

486 x4 133mhz for the win

It could compete with even the Pentium 100 giant...sometimes.

And yar, AMD sux0red the big one before Athlon debuted (500MHz+). I'm not entirely certain but IIRC an Athlon 500 could beat a Celly 600 in any FP intensive task, and possibly in other operations as well. Except the dreaded Intel-loving Sisoft products X___X

Anyway, AMD was lucky as hell that the Alpha CPU group approached them about a joint design effort. Alphas were insanely fast CPUs that never got much love due largely in part that they needed natively programmed apps and were oftentimes only on-par or slightly slower than Intel CPUs while in emulation mode with programmed for Intel apps. Largely because of this AMD rose from being just a bit player to Intel's largest competitor.

 

[rogue1979]

Celeron has 128k on-die L2 cache, K6-2 has none!

 

[secretanchitman]

celeron by far.

 

[darkfalz]

Can you believe I ran my Am486 DX2/80 at 150 MHz? It actually ran Doom timedemo.

 

[JWade]

the k6-2 may have had no L-2, but theboards had them, and i believe boards like the FIC PA-2013 had 2mb on the motherboard

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Astrallite
I'm not entirely certain but IIRC an Athlon 500 could beat a Celly 600 in any FP intensive task, and possibly in other operations as well. Except the dreaded Intel-loving Sisoft products X___X

Actually, according to Anand Lal Shimpi, the 500 Mhz Athlon was as fast as a 600 Mhz Pentium III, in FP-intensive apps. I remember that article very well, it was the first article that I ever read on anandtech.com.

 

[JesseKnows]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
Celeron has 128k on-die L2 cache, K6-2 has none!

But the K6-2 had 64KB L1 cache and the Celeron only 8K.

 

[Zap]

The K6-2 may be faster in certain apps, but overall the Celeron is faster. The Celeron has 128k of on-die full speed (600MHz) L2 cache. It's also a Coppermine core, so could possibly run at 900MHz by bumping the FSB to 100MHz. At that point the K6-2 would win only in a heavy-weight contest. Of course the excellent BX chipset did much to help the Celeron.

 

[Arkaign]

I had a K6-2 (and a K6 and a K6-3). Even a Celeron 300a @ 450 will eat any K6 alive. The .18mu Celerons would win at everything, no contest.

Here's a THG test, shows : K6-3 450Mhz @ 49.8fps, Celeron 400 (Mendocino) @ 52.8fps, Celeron 533 (Coppermine) @ 64fps

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...k_marathon/page23.html

So, basically, the K6 was pretty much crap. Even reading through some of the other benches : 3dmark 2001se, MP3 encoding, RAR Compression, etc, the K6 gets pwned every time by the Coppermine, and almost every time by the 400mhz 66mhz FSB Mendocino Celeron. Pathetic. Luckily for AMD, they released the truly excellent Athlon (and Thunderbird, and XP, and so on) a little while later, redeeming themselves completely. The only people who bought K6s were people who couldn't afford to build a new Intel box (me), or people who just didn't know any better.

 

[Arkaign]

Wow, there are 9 utterly clueless people who voted in here

 

[Killrose]

I had one of the sought after K6III+ 450MHz mobile chips for about a day. Overclocked it to 550MHz and ran benchmarks against my other machine with a Celery skt 370 360MHz@550MHz and it was absolutley laughable. Luckily I was able to sell it on the forums for what I paid. People who think AMD has a problem now should have been playing with cpu overclocks back then.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I think most members here had a celly at some point. I know i did.

 

[zach0624]

386 ftw!!!!
Wow, I remember getting my first computer in 1st grade which I think was a celeron. All that mattered was that it just had to run doom(when my mom wasn't looking). I didn't start giving a crap about performance until I got my athlon xp 1600+ which I oc'd to 1700mhz. So I have no real opinion here. Cool thread though brings back good memories(playing kings quest 4 and doom on my dad's lap at 4). Need to get one of my computers running 9x or dos though to play some of those games(and get better at the command prompt which I was actually able to use by myself at age 4).

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I think most members here had a celly at some point. I know i did.

Unfortunately many people have forgotten the true "value" of a budget chip. What's with everyone wanting dual 8800 GPUs and quadcores? Does money really grow on trees these days? Or maybe daddy's money isn't worth as much?

The most recent CPU I bought was a Pentium Dual Core E2140. Lots 'o fun for $69!

 

[imported_Baloo]

WOW! I can't believe how many people think the Celeron is faster than a k6-2. Don't get me wrong, I have used celerons and loved them - I especially liked the Tualatin Celeron - used to run a 1.2GHz Tualatin at 1.6, it outperformed P4's at much higher clock speeds. But the K6-2 was a very good processor for it's time, and would have smoked the Celeron in most applications. Maybe not 3d games, but everything else. No one in the right mind would use either for 3d games these days.

 

[jjmIII]

Baloo, didn't you see the link above?? The Celeron is faster.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...k_marathon/page23.html

As already said, AMD didn't have a chance on those CRAP Via mobo's.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yeah, the Celeron was definately faster. I had a friend with a K6-2 500 that we pushed to 550, and it still skipped when decoding DVDs. Not so with a Celly 300A @ 450, etc. So a 600Mhz Celly would definately blow it away. Sad but true. The coppermine Celly was probably one of the best Celly chips made.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: jjmIII
Baloo, didn't you see the link above?? The Celeron is faster.

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...k_marathon/page23.html

As already said, AMD didn't have a chance on those CRAP Via mobo's.

lol, no doubt about it, there are now 13(!!!!!) people that voted with total cluelessness. The K6 was crap back then compared to the Celeron. It was a Socket 7 processor FFS, with the L2 cache on the mobo instead of the Cpu die. Even with the best mobo/ram setup, it would be hard to win pretty much ANY benchmark against the Celeron clock for clock. Hell, in the THG bench setup, even the 400mhz 66mhz bus Mendocino was faster than the 450mhz and 500mhz K6-2 and K6-3 chips in almost every bench, and the 533mhz Celeron Coppermine outran them ooth handily at EVERYTHING. A 600mhz Celeron would eat any K6 alive, the poor K6 would probably have to be overclocked to 800mhz to keep up (doubtful if that's even possible with phase change, they were really picky with overclocking, and the super 7 chipsets were crap).

At least the Athlon kicked the poo out of P3