Did you enable Write Combining on the K6-2 as well?

elianda wrote:

Did you enable Write Combining on the K6-2 as well?

I'm pretty sure there is no toggle for that in the HP-branded BIOS, but I have to check. Unfortunately, I don't have the system set up at the moment so I can't check quickly. But I will in the next day or two.

I mean you used FASTVID to set the MTRRs of the Celeron. SETK6D is the tool that does the same for the K6-2. It can be run from the command line just like FASTVID.
If you compare the CPUs make sure you have an equivalent configuration.

elianda wrote:

I mean you used FASTVID to set the MTRRs of the Celeron. SETK6D is the tool that does the same for the K6-2. It can be run from the command line just like FASTVID.
If you compare the CPUs make sure you have an equivalent configuration.

Good to know, thanks. I will have to investigate SETK6D. I had never heard of it until now!

At least the comparison without FASTVID does provide equivalency.

i pitted k6-3+550 against celeron300a oc 450 in 3 benchmarks: superpi, 3dmark01 and quake3.
the celeron won all 3 tests. in quake3 its around 50% faster, the other two tests just saw ~5% difference but remember that the celeron has 100mhz lower clock.

noshutdown wrote:

i pitted k6-3+550 against celeron300a oc 450 in 3 benchmarks: superpi, 3dmark01 and quake3.
the celeron won all 3 tests. in quake3 its around 50% faster, the other two tests just saw ~5% difference but remember that the celeron has 100mhz lower clock.

I have some questions about your benchmarks because:
It's important to know what kind of chipset was used ( even onboard cache if 512kb-1mb etc)

Gpu model and driver version

Celeron 300a slot@450mhz does mean that you push it at 100*4,5 and i think that with these settings you can't compare an amd k6-3+. They work in different way.
If i were you, i would use a pentium II 450 100*4,5 instead.

Doom:
K6-2 550: 93.7 fps
Celeron: 81.2 fps

Celeron at 333? then it's ,lol

clueless1 wrote:

I will have to investigate SETK6D.

In tests package there is mtrrlfbe, wich probably works on K6 too.

Stermy57 wrote:

Celeron 300a slot@450mhz does mean that you push it at 100*4,5 and i think that with these settings you can't compare an amd k6-3+. They work in different way.
If i were you, i would use a pentium II 450 100*4,5 instead.

The Celeron 300 was a famous overclocker. It defaulted to 66Mhz FSB and 4.5 multiplier. Simply by setting the FSB 100 it "became" a Pentium II 450. In fact, many review sites at the time compared it to the Pentium II 450 and found it to perform identically. Example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/174/4

Tertz wrote:

Doom: K6-2 550: 93.7 fps Celeron: 81.2 fps […]
Show full quote

Doom:
K6-2 550: 93.7 fps
Celeron: 81.2 fps

Celeron at 333? then it's 🤣

It seems the K6-2 is faster in situations where there is already more than enough performance, whereas the Celeron is faster in situations where it would actually make a difference in playability.

clueless1 wrote:

In fact, many review sites at the time compared it to the Pentium II 450 and found it to perform identically.

Not all of them could be overclocked, but some 300a worked even at 495 MHz 😀

If you want more testing, welcome to benchmark in my signature. 1st half of its tests. There is no data about K6.

clueless1 wrote:

Stermy57 wrote:

Celeron 300a slot@450mhz does mean that you push it at 100*4,5 and i think that with these settings you can't compare an amd k6-3+. They work in different way.
If i were you, i would use a pentium II 450 100*4,5 instead.

The Celeron 300 was a famous overclocker. It defaulted to 66Mhz FSB and 4.5 multiplier. Simply by setting the FSB 100 it "became" a Pentium II 450. In fact, many review sites at the time compared it to the Pentium II 450 and found it to perform identically. Example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/174/4

I know that the Celeron 300a was famous for his overclocking's skills but if you push it from 66mhz to 100mhz you will not only increase cpu frequency but even agp and pci frequency.
From 66 to 100 agp and pci frequency will work at 100mhz and 50mhz instead of 66 and 33.
Edit: Not all slot1 mainboard have fix

Most chipsets support AGP divider 2/3 and PCI divider 1/3, so no problem running FSB 100.

Stermy57 wrote:

I know that the Celeron 300a was famous for his overclocking's skills but if you push it from 66mhz to 100mhz you will not only increase cpu frequency but even agp and pci frequency.
From 66 to 100 agp and pci frequency will work at 100mhz and 50mhz instead of 66 and 33.
Edit: Not all slot1 mainboard have fix

Many (most?) boards were equipped with the proper dividers for 100mhz FSB operation as that was supported by several PII CPUs. So, unless the motherboard is very bad, the secondary buses will run at stock clocks.

Stermy57 wrote:

I know that the Celeron 300a was famous for his overclocking's skills but if you push it from 66mhz to 100mhz you will not only increase cpu frequency but even agp and pci frequency.
From 66 to 100 agp and pci frequency will work at 100mhz and 50mhz instead of 66 and 33.

Only if the motherboard does not support the correct dividers, which it should if it also supports the 450MHz Deschutes Pentium II.

In this case, it's running on an OEM 440LX board, so there's little/no overclocking. But OC'd to a 90-100mhz FSB it would probably curb stomp the K6-2 at it's top OC...

Stermy57 wrote:

I know that the Celeron 300a was famous for his overclocking's skills but if you push it from 66mhz to 100mhz you will not only increase cpu frequency but even agp and pci frequency.
From 66 to 100 agp and pci frequency will work at 100mhz and 50mhz instead of 66 and 33.
Edit: Not all slot1 mainboard have fix

well, maybe except the boards with earliest lx chipset.
as alexanrs mentioned, such boards withonly 66fsb support could not support p2-350 or higher which were rated for 100fsb, just like the standard 66fsb socket7 boards for k6-2.
in fact, i don't think there are any viable choices of slot1 boards other than the bx, which kept on sale for 3 years.

I remember when I was researching my K6-3 upgrade back then. That was right around the time the Celeron 300A was getting popular. I totally ignored Celerons because they were only 66FSB and just because they were "Celerons". I didn't know much about overclocking back then and even if I'd been more informed, I wasn't comfortable with it. I would have been scared to deviate the slightest bit from specifications.
Pentium-IIs and the required parts I'd need to go with them were too expensive.
I ended up enamored with the K6-3 so that became the focus of all my research.

I don't remember what the pricing was like anymore, but I wonder what it would have cost to go the Celeron route instead of K6. I remember one problem was that I didn't want to have to buy a new case and PSU, so I was trying to stay on AT. But I guess there were some 440BX Baby-AT boards.

It seems Intel was a bit ahead of the curve with their FPU performance, starting with classic Pentiums. It wasn't important for mainstream users until 3D games came along, and then AMD and Cyrix became glaringly deficient.

shamino wrote:

I don't remember what the pricing was like anymore, but I wonder what it would have cost to go the Celeron route instead of K6.

In that Anandtech review I linked, they mentioned the Celeron 300a price at $180, if that helps. I'm sure it wouldn't take much to pull the rest of the numbers if you're curious enough. 😉