SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : AMD:News, Press Releases and Information Only!
AMD 237.57-2.6%Nov 11 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Adrian Wu who wrote (3587)1/8/1998 1:22:00 AM
From: Elmer  Read Replies (2) of 6843
 
<Two scenes of 3D Winbench 97 were ran in parallel on two systems next to each other, one equipped with an Intel Pentium II 300 CPU and LX motherboard, the other running a K6 3D 300/100 in the good old 100 MHz board that I reviewed a few months back." Please read the article.>

I did read the article and strangely enough, it seems that whenever I see the claim that the K6-3D is xx% faster than an Intel chip, I can't ever find out what the configuration is. Why is that? Is 3D on the processor such a great thing? It seems to me that an awful lot of bandwidth will be eated up between the cpu and memory moving all this data back and forth. The Socket7 is not well suited for this. Why aren't we seeing the K6-3D compared to an Intel system with a good 3D card? How does it compare to an Intel chip with an AGP card in 2x mode? I admit I am not an expert in this area and I may be missing something here, but it never ceases to amaze me that this thread is happy to hear that the K6 is faster at anything so no one ever wants to ask "faster doing what and compared to what?" Isn't anyone interested or are you just happy to hear the word "faster".

EP
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext