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
>
>
