PMMX, especially in fpu heavy code.

Wow wow K6-3 is definetly faster, it is more comparable to Pentium II.

The K6-2 and K6-3 chips certainly clock higher than PMMX.

Anyway, looks like my impression of performance was wrong.
K6-III+ vs Pentium mmx

Κ6 clocks a lot higher, however clock for clock, the PMMX will probably be faster.
K6-3's ondie L2 cache will certainly help a lot, it might actually end up faster than PMMX due to this.

gdjacobs wrote:

PMMX, especially in fpu heavy code.

No. The K6-2+ and k6-3 are faster due to the build in L2 cache running at CPU speed. The MMX only has an edge (a decent one at that) in heavily P54C optimized games like GL_Quake. It's just like running the K6-2 cpus in 3dnow! enabled games like quake 2. In Quake (1) the Pentium MMX even outperforms the Penitium II clock per clock. There was and article in PC Magazine (I think?) written just before the PII launch - PII 233 VS P MMX 233. The MMX outperformed the PII in quite a few apps and games of the time.

So my goal is to keep my MAchine at 233mhz just because 🤣.

So would you use the Pentium MMX or the K6-3

candle_86 wrote:

So my goal is to keep my MAchine at 233mhz just because 🤣.

Seems reasonable.

candle_86 wrote:

So would you use the Pentium MMX or the K6-3

I would use the K6 (no -3) personally 😁 For some reason when I think of Pentium MMX it has to be the 166MHz model.

K6-3 will be ahead because of the cache but against a normal cacheless K6 the MMX will win.

I have a K6-3 333 2.3V and K6-3+ 450 1.7V chip no K6-2 or K6 classic chips 🤣

the k6 classic was weaker than k6-3 in every way i think? only exception - it was barely warm to the touch in some cases;
i always wondered why amd did not try to move this thing into the workstation niche - for example with bigger chaches it wouldve been a monster for tasks that are not fpu intensive; im sure there were some amd fans who would've paid the premium to get reasonable power;
another nice thing they might've added was VMX(if i remember correctly), MAX or VIS - faster than 3dnow and probably not much more expensive to get

kanecvr wrote:

gdjacobs wrote:

PMMX, especially in fpu heavy code.

No. The K6-2+ and k6-3 are faster due to the build in L2 cache running at CPU speed. The MMX only has an edge (a decent one at that) in heavily P54C optimized games like GL_Quake. It's just like running the K6-2 cpus in 3dnow! enabled games like quake 2. In Quake (1) the Pentium MMX even outperforms the Penitium II clock per clock. There was and article in PC Magazine (I think?) written just before the PII launch - PII 233 VS P MMX 233. The MMX outperformed the PII in quite a few apps and games of the time.

Yup. I thought otherwise until I read the IPC numbers in the post I linked.

mrau wrote:

the k6 classic was weaker than k6-3 in every way i think? only exception - it was barely warm to the touch in some cases;
i always wondered why amd did not try to move this thing into the workstation niche - for example with bigger chaches it wouldve been a monster for tasks that are not fpu intensive; im sure there were some amd fans who would've paid the premium to get reasonable power;
another nice thing they might've added was VMX(if i remember correctly), MAX or VIS - faster than 3dnow and probably not much more expensive to get

^this. The regular K6 is slower then the MMX in most games. The K6-2 "chomper" (no on die l2 cache) is a bit faster then the MMX (except for games like Quake 1 and P54C optimized apps), and the K6-2+ / K6-III (sharptooth) is about 10-20% faster depending on games. In 1994 - early 1997 games w/o any optimization, the K6-2 about equal or slower then the P54C. In late 97 and older games the K6-2 and K6-2+/3 are much faster then the MMX. Homeworld is a (bad) example (it under-performs on both) but is slightly more playable on the K6-2. A better example is Age of Empires. It seems to like the chomper (k6-2) and sharptooth (K6-III) quite a bit due to their really strong ALUs.

The K6-2 is faster then the K6 because it has 3 more execution units than its predecessor, giving it a total of 10. It also has a slightly better FPU. I think the k6-2 also has slightly larger predecode cache (20kb) over the K6 (16kb).

According to this: download/file.php?id=11657 and comparing to the Pentium MMX:

- K6 233MHz is about 21% faster in Integer and 7% slower in FP performance
- K6-2 233MHz is about 26% faster in Integer and 17% faster in FP
- No K6-3 233MHz results since there's no such part

Not sure if these numbers translate directly into real-world apps and games.

devius wrote:

According to this: download/file.php?id=11657 and comparing to the Pentium MMX: […]
Show full quote

According to this: download/file.php?id=11657 and comparing to the Pentium MMX:

- K6 233MHz is about 21% faster in Integer and 7% slower in FP performance
- K6-2 233MHz is about 26% faster in Integer and 17% faster in FP
- No K6-3 233MHz results since there's no such part

Not sure if these numbers translate directly into real-world apps and games.

Sounds pretty accurate. The K6-3 benefits greatly from the on-die L2 cache in FPU intensive apps and games. Especially when disabling the slow on-motherboard L3 cache.

devius wrote:

According to this: download/file.php?id=11657 and comparing to the Pentium MMX: […]
Show full quote

According to this: download/file.php?id=11657 and comparing to the Pentium MMX:

- K6 233MHz is about 21% faster in Integer and 7% slower in FP performance
- K6-2 233MHz is about 26% faster in Integer and 17% faster in FP
- No K6-3 233MHz results since there's no such part

Not sure if these numbers translate directly into real-world apps and games.

No they do not. In any ''real'' game there is not a single k6 cpu that can even come close to a p2-350mhz, let alone a faster Intel. Only in 3dnow! optimised software they perform amazing but unfortunately there are not many of such progs outside 3dmark and quake.

A k6-2 will come very close to a mmx but needs a slightly higher clock to beat it. The k6-2+ or k6-3 can be up to 20% quicker at the same clock compared to mmx, depending on the software used (without 3dnow!).

meljor wrote:

devius wrote:

According to this: download/file.php?id=11657 and comparing to the Pentium MMX: […]
Show full quote

According to this: download/file.php?id=11657 and comparing to the Pentium MMX:

- K6 233MHz is about 21% faster in Integer and 7% slower in FP performance
- K6-2 233MHz is about 26% faster in Integer and 17% faster in FP
- No K6-3 233MHz results since there's no such part

Not sure if these numbers translate directly into real-world apps and games.

No they do not. In any ''real'' game there is not a single k6 cpu that can even come close to a p2-350mhz, let alone a faster Intel. Only in 3dnow! optimised software they perform amazing but unfortunately there are not many of such progs outside 3dmark and quake.

A k6-2 will come very close to a mmx but needs a slightly higher clock to beat it. The k6-2+ or k6-3 can be up to 20% quicker at the same clock compared to mmx, depending on the software used (without 3dnow!).

You are SO SO WRONG. The K6-3 is faster then the PII in anything but pentium optimized code. It has been benchmarked countless times both here on vogons and other forums: 500MHz P II v.s. 500MHz P III v.s. 550MHz K6-III+ benchmarks!

The PII only gets an edge in Quake 1 - that's it. 3DMark makes use of 3Dnow! or SSE, so both the P3 and the K6-III stomp the P2. Quake 2 was benched w/o the 3dnow patch (it won't work with the voodoo banshee - it freezes) but using a pair of voodoo 2 cards + the 3dnow! patch the K6-3 is faster then the P3 as well.

The only edge the PII has over the K6-2/3 is the platform. The 440bx is superior to the MVP3 or Aladdin V in every way. Just look at the memory read speeds - witch is why a p2 will always feel a bit faster then a K6 in everyday tasks.

kanecvr wrote:

You are SO SO WRONG. The K6-3 is faster then the PII in anything but pentium optimized code.

the problem is.. thats like 98% of all relevant code out there..

devius wrote:

- K6-2 233MHz is about 26% faster in Integer and 17% faster in FP

with 3dnow only i guess?

imho, comparing amd and intel with 1:1 clock ratio is not entirely fair, amd always was cheap in comparison which means its more power per coin that you get?

mrau wrote:

devius wrote:

- K6-2 233MHz is about 26% faster in Integer and 17% faster in FP

with 3dnow only i guess?

I don't think so. I believe that test was using generic code, and the K6-2 is faster than a regular K6 so those numbers look correct to me even without 3DNow.

devius wrote:

mrau wrote:

devius wrote:

- K6-2 233MHz is about 26% faster in Integer and 17% faster in FP

with 3dnow only i guess?

I don't think so. I believe that test was using generic code, and the K6-2 is faster than a regular K6 so those numbers look correct to me even without 3DNow.

It should be. It as 3 more instruction units and an extra 4kb of instruction decode cache over the regular K6. 3Dnow! is not the only improvement the K6-2 holds over the original.