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: Elmer who wrote (50650)	2/23/1999 12:27:00 PM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572719

Re: "What a butt kicking the K63 takes when you see all the benchmarks!!!!" Are we looking at the same set of benchmarks? I see the K6-3 beating any Intel offering clock for clock in business aps. As for the Quake benchmarks, as I've pointed out before, Anand's numbers are WRONG--go look at Sharky's's site for correct Quake 2 benchmarks. Kevin

To: Elmer who wrote (50650)	2/23/1999 12:58:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572719

<What a butt kicking the K63 takes when you see all the benchmarks!!!!> Those Pentium III vs. K6-III benchmarks on Anand's website pleasantly surprised me. AMD is back down to "not as fast, but good enough for the average person" status. But to be fair, clock-for-clock K6-3 is better at office applications than any of Intel's CPUs. Also, why did Anand only use 1 MB of L3 cache in his tests? I thought that even AMD is recommending 2 MB for all K6-3 systems in order to maximize performance. Tenchusatsu