Rene writes:
>I'm looking for a real cost effective (very cheap :-) solution, which means
>holding on to my current MB. It supports bus speeds up to 66 MHz, 1.5, 2.0,
>2.5 and 3.0 multipliers (200MHz max, therefore), and only single voltage
>CPUs, either 3.3V +/- 5% or 3.45-3.6 (VRE). Does the AMD K6-2 fit this
>profile, and if so, which AMD K6-2 speedmarking corresponds to the physical
>200MHz speed? I myself am under the impression that the single voltage
>requirement could mess things up? How about the AMD K6 (minus the 2) and
its
>speedmarkings?
>
>If you or anyone else could throw in some information on Cyrix CPUs as
well,
>I'd be eternally in your debt.
You dont say which CPU you are currently using but I can confirm that
the CPU voltage EXCLUDES all the recent cheap IBM/Cyrix CPUs which
run on 2.9v.
Best you can run on that motherboard are the old:
Cyrix 6x86 P166+, the 6x86L's and anything more recent will fry.
The K6-2's are out as well, guess you'd have to go back to the
AMD K5's at that voltage.
Or a pre-MMX pentium...
Cheers
Steal
-----Original Message-----
From: Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tom Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 March 1999 17:48
Subject: IDT WinChip C6 / IDT WinChip 2 / AMD K6 / AMD K6-2 / Cyrix ???
>Hello Tom.
>
>>I was at a local PC user group meeting (non-Linux) when
>>an IDT rep presented the original WinChip. He said it
>>was OPTIMIZED for Win32 programs.
>
>This I understood also. Since I assume however that optimizing a processor
>for Win32 must boil down to analyzing which instruction(sequence)s are used
>most frequently in your average Win32 environment, and cutting down on the
>number of clocks for those, and expect that any operating system will spend
>the vast majority of CPU cycles on application code (as opposed to kernel
>code, after all, running applications is the job its hired to do :-) and
>futhermore assume that on the average and as far as the instructions
>executed are concerned, Linux application code won't be all that different
>from Win32 application code (guess this could be a bad assumption) I didn't
>worry about it much.
>
>However
>
>>That would lead me to suspect it would not be the best
>>choice for running with Linux.
>
>Nor Windows it seems. Searching the net some more provided me with some,
>impartial, benchmarks showing the WinChip to perform rather (to very)
poorly
>on anything other than bussiness-type apps, and since my main incentive for
>upgrading would be having LucasArt's Grim Fandango run just a tad more
>smoothly I guess I just might take your advice.
>
>>Why not an AMD K6-2/(200/266/300/350/400)?
>
>If I can, that is. I am, and have been for some time, rather out of touch
>with the hardware stuff, so if you're able to provide me with some more
>information, it'd really be much appreciated...
>
>I'm looking for a real cost effective (very cheap :-) solution, which means
>holding on to my current MB. It supports bus speeds up to 66 MHz, 1.5, 2.0,
>2.5 and 3.0 multipliers (200MHz max, therefore), and only single voltage
>CPUs, either 3.3V +/- 5% or 3.45-3.6 (VRE). Does the AMD K6-2 fit this
>profile, and if so, which AMD K6-2 speedmarking corresponds to the physical
>200MHz speed? I myself am under the impression that the single voltage
>requirement could mess things up? How about the AMD K6 (minus the 2) and
its
>speedmarkings?
>
>If you or anyone else could throw in some information on Cyrix CPUs as
well,
>I'd be eternally in your debt.
>
>>I'm using three AMD K6's in my computers and have not
>>had ANY problems (otherthan my own uh,.. stupidity :-)).
>>One of them has been going now for over four years
>>(plain K6, not a K6-2) without a single problem.
>
>I'm still in love with my ancient AMD 386DX-40, so having an AMD again
might
>be nice... :-)
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Rene.
>
>
