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: Profits who wrote (30141)	3/24/1998 1:49:00 AM
From: Investor A	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575793

Profit$, I expect the 233Mhz K6 Classic to blow the socks off of the 266Mhz Celeron. A correction. All benchmarks has indicated that the cacheless PII-266 would perform up to the level of 256K PMMX-200 (not 512K) in Winstone97 business benchmark. K6-166Mhz with 512K is faster than PMMX-200 256K cache. Thus, a more accurate statement is "K6-166 with 512K is faster than PII-SX-266"! Of course, PII-SX-266 will be much slower than K6-166 when users put both of them to work side by side. Due to the aged architecture design of PII and the lacking of both L2 and L3 cache from Alpha technology, PII-SX-266 system will stalled whenever a cache hit succeeds or misses on every job you put on it.

To: Profits who wrote (30141)	3/24/1998 2:14:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 1575793

ProfitsBOB - Re: "systems based on the K6 classic will offer a much better price/performance ratio." These systems are going to cost pretty much the same and there will be minor differences if any between processor performances. That will make the price/performance "metric" about the same. Paul

To: Profits who wrote (30141)	3/24/1998 3:51:00 AM
From: Investor A	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575793

Here is a post from chip newsgroup as the performance benchmarm on the cachless PII-266 vs K6-233. I would like to draw your attention toward the cacheless PII that this cacheless PII simply disclosd the fact that Intel could not innovate or is not capable to modify their own core business: x86 CPU. The cacheless PII makes Intel technlogy shortfall nake in front of the PC world. What a shame! Quote ===================================================== Anthony Hill wrote: > > > The point is not that the PII isn't the fastest, but WHY the > PII is faster, and it has very little, if anything, to do with the > processor core itself (which is only slightly better then the > original Pentium). The reason why the PII is so fast is that it has > a fast L2 > cache. Considering that the original thread was about the fact that > Intel will be making PIIs without ANY L2 cache at all, this is > actually a reasonably significant point. Just as a little side > note, would anyone with a PII 266MHz chip want to run some > benchmark comparisons with their L2 cache on (like a normal PII) > and then with the L2 cache disabled via the BIOS (like one of the > upcoming Covington > chips)? Would be kinda interesting to compare. > Same components other then the MoBo & CPU: iPII 266 iPII 266 K6 233 W/ Cache W/O Cache WS97 Bus 52.2 36.9 48.1 High 23.7 17.5 20.7 WB97 Bus Disk 1150 1040 1140 High Disk 4340 4050 4160 CPU 16 524 293 479 CPU 32 691 298 591 Bus Graph 101 67.4 90.1 High Graph 44.1 29.6 40.9 3D Winbench97 184 133 116 Worse then I thought... -- John Howland / Specialty Tech - MoBo's, CPU's, Memory... Lake Forest, Calif. USA (714)951-7067 Web Site: home.pacbell.net ======================================================= end of quote