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: Buckwheat who wrote (33625)	6/28/1998 10:16:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571911

Re: "EP,, this isn't exactly an appearances thing. The K6 and K6-2 outperform the Celeron....PERIOD." Yes they do, providing you run it on an operating system that includes 16 bit code...PERIOD. Re: "If you find any pages published that contain blistering benchmarks on Celerons, please provide us a link." Blistering? Well I won't make that claim, but here's one tomshardware.com This shows the Celeron beating an equally clocked K6-2 running NT Highend Winstone. This also shows a Celeron beating an equally clocked K6 running NT Business winstone (Celeron with 100mhz bus, K6 with 66mhz bus). The point is that the K6-x is dependent on 16 bit code to make a Celeron look bad. I expect this discussion to be moot soon as onboard L2 cache will have more of a performance boost for the Celeron than it will for any future K6 derivitive as the Celeron currently has 32K L1 & no L2 as opposed to a K6 with 64K L1 and 512K L2. EP