On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the words of Barry K. Nathan :
>
> > > Why they didn't call it K6-4 is anyones guess.
> > I read somewhere (I don't have a URL handy, sorry) that the reason AMD
> > went with K6-2+ is that, apparently, the K6-2 name is well-known, and
> > they
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the words of Barry K. Nathan :
Why they didn't call it K6-4 is anyones guess.
I read somewhere (I don't have a URL handy, sorry) that the reason AMD
went with K6-2+ is that, apparently, the K6-2 name is well-known, and
they wanted to
> IIRC, the K6-2+ is really a K6-3 core with the on-chip L2 cache disabled
> because of defects.
My recollection (starting with the K6-3+ and then going to the K6-2+ - if
there are any errors, please correct me):
The K6-3+ is a K6-3 produced on a smaller process (180nm, as opposed to
the K6-3's
> IIRC, the K6-2+ is really a K6-3 core with the on-chip L2 cache disabled
> because of defects.
Hmmm I don't think so. From the dmesg of my K6-2+ [a 500Mhz underclocked
to 75Mhzx6 on my poor PA-2007 motherboard]
CPU: L1 I Cache: 32K L1 D Cache: 32K (32 bytes/line)
CPU: L2 Cache: 128K
CPU:
"Barry K. Nathan" wrote:
>
> > The K6-2+ is actually the CPU that was released
> > _after_ K6-3. Go figure.
> >
> > Why they didn't call it K6-4 is anyones guess.
>
> I read somewhere (I don't have a URL handy, sorry) that the reason AMD went
> with K6-2+ is that, apparently, the K6-2 name is
In the words of Barry K. Nathan :
> > Why they didn't call it K6-4 is anyones guess.
> I read somewhere (I don't have a URL handy, sorry) that the reason AMD
> went with K6-2+ is that, apparently, the K6-2 name is well-known, and
> they wanted to build on that...
Sounds like a marketing thing.
"Barry K. Nathan" wrote:
The K6-2+ is actually the CPU that was released
_after_ K6-3. Go figure.
Why they didn't call it K6-4 is anyones guess.
I read somewhere (I don't have a URL handy, sorry) that the reason AMD went
with K6-2+ is that, apparently, the K6-2 name is well-known,
IIRC, the K6-2+ is really a K6-3 core with the on-chip L2 cache disabled
because of defects.
Hmmm I don't think so. From the dmesg of my K6-2+ [a 500Mhz underclocked
to 75Mhzx6 on my poor PA-2007 motherboard]
CPU: L1 I Cache: 32K L1 D Cache: 32K (32 bytes/line)
CPU: L2 Cache: 128K
CPU:
IIRC, the K6-2+ is really a K6-3 core with the on-chip L2 cache disabled
because of defects.
My recollection (starting with the K6-3+ and then going to the K6-2+ - if
there are any errors, please correct me):
The K6-3+ is a K6-3 produced on a smaller process (180nm, as opposed to
the K6-3's
9 matches
Mail list logo
