<From the AMD marketing perspective, I would expect them to be concentrating on their weak points which have been strengthened. Wouldn't you?>
Yeah, that's true too. Can't argue with you there.
But I remember how people preaching the Intel-alternatives like Cyrix and AMD kept mentioning that although Intel's processors are much better at floating-point, only a small percentage of applications actually depend on it. Once the K7 is released, we can see an interesting reversal of positions, where Intel-supporters will try and argue that floating-point doesn't matter as much.
<As far as I know, at identical clock, K6 beats PII in integer calculations, under most configurations.>
It does? According to Tom's Hardware, Pentium II 350 MHz beats a K6-2 350 MHz in Winstone 98 under Windows 95 (28.3 vs. 27.2). This is the closest you can get to a fair comparison, i.e. no castration (i.e. disabling L2 caches), and the bus speeds are equivalent (e.g. K6-2 300 MHz beats Pentium II 300 MHz, but only by 0.3 points, and only because Pentium II is on 66 MHz bus.)
Pentium II 350 MHz even beats a K6-2 350 MHz in Quake 2, but only by 1 FPS. (This includes the benefits of 3D-Now for K6-2.)
Tenchusatsu |
