Havli, I only ran the 3Dmark CPU test because I had very dissimilar systems, and I was trying to isolate the score differences to just those factors relating to CPU and chipset. Though, you and and F2 need to get together and decide when 3Dmark is a valid comparison, apparently. Perhaps only when it agrees with your premise? You can't have it both ways.
As BSA mentions, look, there is no debate that the Intel platforms of the era were better gaming systems than the K6-III (and derivatives). Likewise the same reviews of the time note the impressive performance for the K6-III in average desktop and business software. Nothing more. Nothing less.
However, I would remind all those that can't decide whether 3Dnow! is fair/irrelevant/whatever... in 1998 and much of 1999 there was no SSE enabled processors on the market. In a very real way, 3Dnow was the only steaming SIMD instruction set extension out. It did have real market share even if it did not have a significant impact. At least enough of a market impact that DirectX included optimizations as well as nVidia's drivers of the day (my subtle counter-example to the notion that nothing used 3DNow or that it had no impact). So any snapshot of the late 90's really does deserve to include 3DNow optimizations even if nothing more than to show what it could be capable of -- even if it ended up being just a sidenote in computing history.
BSA also touches on a huge factor for Socket 7 owners back then... for those that did have Super Socket 7 boards, the K6-III represented a great upgrade path at a great price, especially for non-gamers. Back to the premise of the thread, everything after it including the Athlons and Durons handily outmatch it. Dollar for dollar, the Durons were amazing performers.