I've heard just the opposite. The PII can overclock better then
AMDs...One reason why the PII is in the Slot 1 technology and the AMD is
still in the Socket. Also, I don't give my support out to overclocking. I
admit right now that I don't know much about overclocknig, but what I do
know is not in favor of it. One comment I've heard (straight from Intel),
is that there is a crystal on your motherboard and there is one in your cpu.
When the dot-frequencies don't match, the system (specifically the Cpu
Cycles and the Timer Tick's with the Cpu compared to the motherboard Timer)
becomes unstable.
-Regards
Peeyush Singh
>According to every site I've checked, including Tom's Hardware
>and CPU review, the AMD K6-2 (a.k.a. K6-3D) will perform well
>within 1% of an equivalent PII. Under Linux, CPU Review's
>kernel compilation benchmarks put the PII at about 0.82% faster.
>Tom's Hardware Quake scores (under Win '95) are similar.
>I mention the Win 95 scores w/quake II only to illustrate that
>these are different Operating Systems, and VERY different
>applications (but both very CPU intensive.)
>
>My opinion: Choosing a PII over a K6-2 with the same Mhz rating
>doesn't really make sense. I can't justify paying hundreds
>of dollars more to get an performance increase of less than 1%.
>Add to the that the fact that AMD processors tend to overclock
>very well, (just about everybody seems to be overlocking their
>AMD,) it's really no contest.
>
>Also, kernel compilation results suggest that you should avoid
>the Celeron processor like a leper colony.
>
>Bryan Scaringe
>
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm going to change my PII 266.
>> Does the AMD K6-3D 300MHz better than the PII for Linux?
>>
>> Jerome Gasperi
>>
>>
>
