You are viewing a page from Ray's Packard Bell Web
Site
Almost Everything You Need to Know About Your Packard
Bell Computer
AMD K6-2 vs. AMD K6-III
Now that the AMD K6-III and AMD K6-2 are both available in 400 MHz from
PowerLeap.
I was wondering which PowerLeap adapter upgrade performs better.
This page contains the results of my testing of both processors on my Packard
Bell PB 640 motherboard with a Mr. BIOS upgrade, 64 MB of RAM, Windows
95 and a Stealth II S220 video card.
So what is the AMD-K6-III processor with 3DNow! technology? Well,
AMD describes it as "the ultimate sixth generation processor for home PC
enthusiasts and business power users. The AMD-K6-III processor combines
3DNow! technology with AMD's new TriLevel Cache design to deliver exceptional
performance on leading business and consumer software applications. The
key to this enhanced performance is our innovative TriLevel Cache design,
which provides the largest total system cache for desktop PCs-more than
four times the size of other competing system designs." Basically
this means that the AMD-K6-III is an AMD K6-2 that has 256 L2 cache on
the CPU.
What is a PowerLeap adapter? This device from PowerLeap allows
socket 7 and socket 5 motherboards to have clock multiplier speeds up to
6.0x, even if you original motherboard has a maximum multiplier that is
lower. Additionally, this adapter will also provide you with the
proper split voltages for all AMD, CYRIX and Intel MMX processor to work
on your system. Once the Powerleap adapter is installed you are only
limited by your BIOS.
Because my original motherboard does not support AMD Processors or 6.0x
clock multipliers I needed to use the PowerLeap adapter in my tests.
But as you can see below this combination has given me a dramatic increase
in speed over my original Pentium 133 that came with my system.
So does this extra cache make a difference? How does it perform?
Let's take a look.
The results below show the performance of AMD K6-2 and AMD
K6-III 400 MHz processors on my own Packard Bell System. I performed
the tests both with cache on the motherboard and without cache on the motherboard
to show what types of improvements the extra cache will give.
AMD Processor |
K6-3
(512 Cache) |
K6-3
(No Cache) |
K6-2
(512 Cache) |
K6-2
(No Cache) |
CPU Integer (MIPS) |
1088 |
1001 |
786 |
580 |
Memory (MB/S) |
690 |
326 |
546 |
261 |
CPU Floating Point (MFLOPS) |
480 |
480 |
480 |
479 |
As you can see from the results, AMD K6-III out-performs the
AMD K6-2 in the CPU Integer test no matter how much cache the system has.
However, the Floating Point Integer remains the same across all tests with
or without motherboard cache. The area most affected by the amount
of cache is the memory test. As you can see, the more cache, the
higher the memory score. This is to be expected because cache is
a form of memory which will increase this score.
Below are more results showing the AMD CPU results for both
video and disk performance.
AMD Processor |
K6-3
(512 Cache) |
K6-3
(No Cache) |
K6-2
(512 Cache) |
K6-2
(No Cache) |
Direct3D (MPixels/s) |
56 |
53 |
55 |
52 |
VIDEO 2D (MPixels/s) |
41 |
38 |
36 |
34 |
Cached Disk (MB/s ) |
68 |
57 |
30 |
19 |
OpenGL (MPixels/s) |
5.6 |
4.5 |
5.5 |
4.7 |
Uncached Disk (MB/s ) |
2.3 |
2.2 |
2.2 |
2.1 |
Of course, the most dramatic figure that stands out in the
graph is the cached disk. The AMD K6-III beats the AMD K6-2 hands
down. The extra 256K L2 cache on the CPU makes a big difference when
the system caches data from the disk. The Uncached Disk results were
flat, showing the AMD K6-2 and AMD K6-III performed identically without
cache.
The Video 2D results were higher on the K6-III, the extra cache
looks like it makes a bit of a difference with the 2D Video. Again
the AMD K6-III wins.
The Direct 3D and Open GL were not that much different between the AMD
K6-III and the AMD K6-2.
Well I have to say I am impressed and I know the AMD K6-III will stay
in my system for a while. I have to thank PowerLeap for making the
PowerLeap
PL-K6-II adapter. To think Packard Bell told me my system could
not have a processor higher than an Intel 200 MHz non-MMX processor; well,
here I am speeding at 400 MHz, twice what my system was designed for and
I don't have a single problem. In fact, my system never ran better.
That extra 256 Kb of L2 cache on the CPU makes a difference on my system.
If you enjoyed this page, read my other articles on the 400 MHz AMD
K6-III:
Copyright © 1999 Ray's
Packard Bell Web Site; all rights reserved.
For a list of all my web pages or frames-free viewing see my Site
Map.