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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Timothy Liu who wrote (67139)	10/21/1998 4:17:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<I can't seem to find these numbers in the site processor.org you indicated. All I can find is a collection of people reporting their benchmarks with numbers varying all over the place. For example, for 3D Winbench 98, I saw someone with PII233(oc 333) rated at over 2200, and Celeron 333A rated at 1430.> Those numbers that Lawrence Ladao quoted are in there. Just check this link: processor.org and scroll to the middle of the page. Personally, I don't trust those numbers, either. I still trust Tom's Hardware Guide, which had these Quake 2 benchmark numbers: Pentium II 350/100: 60 fps AMD K6-2 350/100: 59 fps Pentium II 333/66: 56 fps AMD K6-2 333/95: 56 fps Celeron 333/66: 55 fps AMD K6-2 300/100: 54 fps Pentium II 300/66: 52 fps Celeron 300A/66: 50 fps That tells me that, for Quake 2, the K6-2 (w/ 3D-Now, of course) is faster than Pentium II at clock speeds under 333 MHz, and slower at clock speeds of 350 MHz and above. The results are too close for any human to notice the difference, but at least this disproves the claim that AMD's K6-2 running 3D-Now "blows away" the Pentium II at equivalent clock speeds. Tenchusatsu