>If you think that a K6 is faster than a PII, read the true benchmarks in
>games as posted at sites like Tom's hardware (www.tomshardware.com). You
>will soon see that in games, the K6 is not even the equal of a Pentium.
While I'm inclined to agree with you, I think the point is still open to
debate. I wish someone would close the issue by reporting Occupancies with
both cpus on otherwise the same system (geez, I'd almost consider buying both
just to do this and end the issue!). And if someone has these two CPU's,
please test a whole bunch of flight sims too :-)
Anyway, unless Tom's site has some new info, I gather you mostly refer to the
superior performance of the Intel on Quake, Quake II, and perhaps Forsaken(?).
I don't think it is a given that you can extrapolate this to mean that it
works better on GP2, or many other titles. OTOH, you also see people respond:
"the Intel is superior in Quake and Quake-like games only". I don't see how
they conclude this unless privy to a whole lot of info that I haven't seen.
Obviously, one can't conclude it from the info above.
From the few reports I've seen from people claiming to have tried the MMX and
the K6 on an otherwise same system, yes, it does seem like the AMD benches
better in many tests, but the Intel is superior in many games' performance.
Still, I'd like to see hard data (on games OTHER than Quake-like please!!).
>> I wanted to get some input on buying a new machine. I will want to play
>GP2
>> plus standard PC use. I am debating between AMD K-6 233 or Pentium 233
>or
>> Pentium II 233 or even spending a bit more for Pentium II 266. A few
>people
>> said get the AMD K-6 with 64 MB of RAM because the K-6 is faster that a
>> Pentium II 266. Also does anyone know if AMD is planning a chip faster
>than
>> their 233. Finally, does 2 mb versus 4 mb of video RAM make a difference
>or
>> 64-bit card versus 128-bit card. Thanks for the input.
