the mvp3 chipset is compared to the BX chipset - simply spoken - crap =)

Still the K6 (and K6-2) were very successful CPUs and allowed AMD to bring the Athlon.
BX was only for rich people 😉.

schlang wrote:

the mvp3 chipset is compared to the BX chipset - simply spoken - crap =)

ALi Alladdin V actually, the MVP3 was Via territory.
It's not really that bad.

only PII's against K6-III+ ?
Am I right, that the Celerons are better for Gaming (300a-433 slot, 366-533 s370) then PII's because 128K FullSpeed is better then 512K half speed?

Nobody done benches with that slot-celerons against slot PII's yet?

http://www.pc-erfahrung.de/fileadmin/php-skri … 235,237,309,310

I included a PIII 500 in these tests as well.

Celerons will be faster clock for clock if you're also using the same FSB as said CPU, so that's 66MHz for early Pentium II CPUs and then 100MHz for the later ones. But yes, a lot of people bought the Celeron 300A, easily clocked it to 450MHz and basically had the fastest CPU available for a while. The fastest CPU at the time was the Pentium II 450, but it would actually be slightly slower for most tasks, not to mention cost roughly 4x times what the Celeron did 🤣 .

I've noticed an interesting issue with K6+ platforms that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere, other than fellow member Skyscraper. I've seen performance with 3Dfx cards really plummet even on K6-III+ 550 and faster CPUs of the same family. This seems to affect both D3D and Glide/OGL and also any card I've tried, be it V2 SLI, Voodoo3 and even Voodoo5. I once had this issue on my GA-5AX and managed to resolve it by using a V3 AGP instead of a PCI version and didn't really give it much thought after that. However, even on a P5A-B I've seen this manifest with all of the aforementioned videocards.

To give you a perspective, Quake 2 will produce roughly 50fps, regardless of resolution, on Demo 01 and both V3 and V5. I noticed this issue around July while benchmarking Forsaken and seeing my FPS plummet at 640x480 with a V5 from ~160FPS to ~80. I've tried clean installs, different OSes (of the 9x family though), different drivers, different BIOS settings and have yet to pinpoint it. And to be honest, I got kinda pissed off about it and stopped paying attention. If anyone has ever noticed anything like this before, I'd love to hear your thoughts. I might start a new thread to raise awareness/see if we can somehow resolve it. We can safely say this is an Aladdin V based problem, hopefully it doesn't turn up on MVP3 boards.

That's an interesting aspect that I noticed too. Sometime my V3 performs nearly the same with a K6-III+@400(66FSB) and a Pentium 233MMX.
The FPU is the week point of the CPU. 3Dnow drivers do make it better, but it stands out that the 3d-performance IS weak.
My PII-333 is in most cases clearly better then the K6-III+ I used before.
Though I am planing to change to a Mendocine-Celeron that is supported by my board (D981), because the faster cache will probably give
me a bit of extra speed.

But one thing is a big vexation, the build and stability-quality of the later celerons!
My PII-333 has a rocksolide housing an a big fixed heatsink with screws. It fits really good in the slot1.

Doc

dr.zeissler wrote:

Nobody done benches with that slot-celerons against slot PII's yet?

Did you take a look at the Ultimate 686 Benchmark Comparison? The Celeron Mendocino at 300, 400, and 450 MHz was benchmarked. A few examples below,

Quake 2 (openGL mode)
Celeron Mendocino - 450 (4.5x100) = 35.9 fps
Intel Pentium II - 400 (4.0x100) = 35.6 fps

Doom
Celeron Mendocino - 450 (4.5x100) = 106 fps
Intel Pentium II - 400 (4.0x100) = 106 fps

Quake 1 (software mode, 640x480, no fastvid)
Celeron Mendocino - 450 (4.5x100) = 20.6 fps
Intel Pentium II - 400 (4.0x100) = 20.0 fps

Overall Integer Performance
Celeron Mendocino - 450 (4.5x100) = 226.3
Intel Pentium II - 400 (4.0x100) = 207.0

Overall Floating-point Performance
Celeron Mendocino - 450 (4.5x100) = 224.0
Intel Pentium II - 400 (4.0x100) = 214.6

From these results, the overclocked Intel Celeron Mendocino 300A at 450 MHz is fairly well matched to the significantly more expensive Intel Pentium II at 400 MHz, with a slight edge towards the Mendocino. Would a Mendocino work in a dual Slot 1 motherboard with a second Mendocino onboard? [EDIT: Yes, with some modification: http://www.cpu-central.com/dualceleron/#300A]

Did someone bench OUTCAST?

feipoa wrote:

From these results, the overclocked Intel Celeron Mendocino 300A at 450 MHz is fairly well matched to the significantly more expensive Intel Pentium II at 400 MHz, with a slight edge towards the Mendocino. Would a Mendocino work in a dual Slot 1 motherboard with a second Mendocino onboard? [EDIT: Yes, with some modification: http://www.cpu-central.com/dualceleron/#300A]

If you use the Socket-370 version of the CPUs on slotkets you dont need to do any modding to run dual Mendocinos as most slotkets have a jumper that rewires them to activate SMP support.

dr.zeissler wrote:

Did someone bench OUTCAST?

I did some tests on Outcast and was actually wanting to include it on the final document, however there is no benchmark inside the game and whenever I tried FRAPS the frame counter would glitch out, so I was estimating what the actual framerate was most of the time.
Needless to say, the K6 does pretty badly in that game. Anything above 320x200 is unplayable for me. Pentium 2 400 was doing pretty good at 400x300 and with most settings turned all the way up. The one setting that absolutely annihilates perfomance is Depth of Field. Even a Tualatin 1.4 overclocked to 1.6GHz can't hit 60fps with that setting turned on. It's that demanding!

PII-333 works good in 320x240, but I expect the celeron to be even better, or am I expecting too much?