<now for tom's review what missing in his presentation is the system tested cost. do you beleive it is a fair comparison to test a system that cost $1,000.oo against one that cost $2,500.00.>
Greg, how much "fairer" does Tom's test have to be? Everything was the same, except for the CPU, motherboard, and the 3DNow-optimized drivers for the K6-2. We're comparing the K6-2 to the Celeron, not the Pentium II. Last time I checked, a Celeron 366 is cheaper than a K6-2 400, but runs just about everything faster (except Quake 2 on Voodoo2). Systems built around a Celeron 366 are going to be, on the average, cheaper than systems built around a K6-2 400.
This is the problem that AMD has at the moment, that their K6-2 is in danger of being completely crushed by Celeron's prices and performance. The K6-III is no longer just a "gee-whiz-cool" thing, it's become AMD's only means of profitability until K7.
Tenchusatsu
P.S. - Scumbria, no need to comment. |
