Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (91644)	2/5/2000 12:12:00 AM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577534

Jozef - RE: "The question is: is it at least as good as Celery or Coppermine 128? If it is, AMD should go for it and call it something other than Athlon (Wasn't a name aleron floating around?)" Check out this comparison at Ace's of the Athlon, Celeron, K6-2, and K6-III all running at 400MHz. (The Athlon is "underclocked".) aceshardware.com Benchmark Athlon Celeron K6-3 K6-2 CPU Mark '99 39.1 32 41.5 26.1 FPU Mark '99 2180 2140 1350 1320 Winstone '99 22.8 22.1 22.9 19.2 Quake 3 Normal 49.8 41 25.8 24.3 Quake 2 Crusher 52 39 40 33 Without L2 cache, the AThlon's performance would go below the K6-III and Celeron's in business apps, like the original Celery. This chart also shows more reasons why the Athlon would benefit very well with on-chip L2 cache.