AMD K6-2 equiv to what Pent? 4

[javierdl]

What kind of pentium a 550 megahertz AMD K6-2 w/3DNow! what be equivalent to? Any idea?

And, would it be able to run WinXP with 256ram?

Thnks guys,

JDL

http://www.sunnylandbaja.com

 

[paparazi]

Pentiums were a little quicker at that time so I guess a P3 450 would be about the same, PII 450 slightly slower.
You are very much on the boarderline with XP, officialy it was 500mhz but I think 700 or above (my opinion) although I've heard users who have installed it on machines as low as P166's.
256mb is just enough in my opinion, typically on a average machine this leaves around 100mb for other apps but this can be much lower if you allow too many things to run in the background (go into the start menue and disable everything you recognise that you don't want to start automatically eg: MSN.
Martin

We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[cdogg]

Overall, the K6-2's were a little slower than their Pentium-II counterparts, and lot slower than a PIII rated at the same speed.

I would say that a PIII 450MHz would be its equivalent, which is fast enough to run XP. If you turn off some of XP's visual effects, you shouldn't have any problems as long as you have 256MB or more of RAM. It won't be blazing fast, but it'll be fast enough to cope.


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[jurgen36]

XP can actually run with 64 Mbytes. MS recommends 128 Mbyte, 256 Mbyte is enough for most applications. I would not like to play Doom 3 with it, it would work, but very sloooow. But then a K2 would not work to well either. I have seen many new machines in the shops only fitted with 128 Mbyte as standard memory. They all work quite well, provided a fast CPU is used. The K2 machines usually use only 32 Mbytes with Win ME.
Regards

Jurgen

 

[javierdl]

Thank you all guys
Pretty good info here.

Another question:
If you had the option to install Win2k sp4 instead, would you prefer it over XP? (giving the specs I have)

JDL

http://www.sunnylandbaja.com

 

[paparazi]

Not really as all the bells and whisles can be turned off in XP anyway to help resources and XP's infinate driver database and compatibility is a definate plus over W2K.
jurgen36
We used to build 128mb machines, strickly for budget and show! as they page file almost imediatey and are dead slow as a result.
XP really does use 128mb to run, and the more ram installed, the larger proportion it will use, as we are supposed to give good advice here saying XP runs with 128 is not particularly helpful, accurate to a point but not really sound advice, I realise what you were getting at and appologise for nit picking but some reading this thread may get the wrong impression.
Martin

We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[felixc]

I have a machine with Win2K and a K6-2 at 550MHz. FIC motherboard (VIA chipset). It is very stable for business and engineering applications, and the speed is surprisingly comfortable.

 

[cdogg]

XP consistently benchmarks slightly ahead of its Win2K compadre, mainly due to tighter DirectX integration.

Another main thing to consider is lifecycle of support. At this point, Win2K is no longer officially sold directly from Microsoft. So XP is one-up on lifespan.

Since XP's extra features can be disabled to resemble a spittin' image of 2000, I see no reason to go for the older OS. Only those already invested in 2000 have a valid argument against the need to upgrade to XP.


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[norty303]

My ex-girlfriend still has our old K6-2 450mhz with 128mb ram and has XP Pro installed on it. Once I'd chosen the best performance settings it ran fine. She produces a free-zine on it so it handles the graphics/text fine.

 

[ceh4702]

The AMD K6-2 was a nice cool-running processor. It came out in a transitional time for Intel when it was both making PII and PIII processors. It was a technological advancement over the PII with its slow cache memory. However Intel corrected this in the PIII line. Intel made a lot of revisions and improvements with the PIII processors. One big difference is at which point in production the Intel Processors were using a SLOT design and at which point they were using a Socket 370 design. I had an Intel 500mhz PII in the slot design. And I also built a K6-2 300 about the same time which came in a super socket 7 design. Eventually Intel went back to the Socket 370 design. I dont know at which point which design for the socket was used. Someone may have a chart.

If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.

 

[ceh4702]

You may also want to look at both the FSB and Memory Speed for the motherboard/chipset and the processor. I dont recall whether that was about 66 or 72 or 100 or what. I am thinking the speed of the ram was just peaking out at PC100. Intel made a wide variety of different PIII processors at differing speeds and capabilities.

If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.

 

[cdogg]

Just as an FYI, the Coppermine PIII's were the first to go back to the socket design. I believe the intial speed was 700MHz and PC133 was the standard.

The older Katmai Slot PIII's initially ran really hot using PC100. They eventually faded away after 800MHz, but did receive a boost to PC133 before dying a painless death...




~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884