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: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (50117)	2/19/1999 2:47:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580109

<PIII is SLOWER than PII:> Kevin, he's underclocking a Pentium III at 333 MHz on a 66 MHz bus and comparing that to a Pentium II at 333 MHz. If I remember correctly, when the 333 MHz 0.25 Deschutes core was released, some testers were underclocking it to 300 MHz to show that it was slower than an 0.35 micron Pentium II (Klamath) at 300 MHz. As a side note, I didn't like the format of the graphs on that web site. Kind of hard to read. Tenchusatsu

To: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (50117)	2/19/1999 2:51:00 PM
From: Petz	Respond to of 1580109

PIII cache is slower than PII! Read all about it: bxboards.com In fact the extra cache wait state is enough to make the Dell XPS T500 machine actually slower than the XPS R450 machine in running Windows applications. See exchange2000.com The extra 50 MHz can't make up for the slower cache. Petz

To: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (50117)	2/19/1999 6:49:00 PM
From: greg nus	Respond to of 1580109

kevin, PentiumIII LIMP slower than pentiunII is no suprise, since Intel is using warmed over PentiumII technology. More significanlty is the fact that at higher mhz the Pentium III line is unstable. Great article you posted