Performance on system?

[Galilee 0]

How will Windows XP Home edition run on this machine:

 

AMD K6-2 475 MHz

384MB PC100 RAM

 

?

 

And if it is slow, how can I make it faster? (without upgrading the whole system). I plan to turn of Luna and just use the standard classic Windows look. Anything else I can turn off? System Restore maybe.

[pimpin_228 0]

should run ok, might not be the fastest, turn off system restore, hibernation, etc.

[Brian Frank 0]

Well, a friend of mine has a P3 450 and 384MB and XP is fast under his system. Then again I'm comparing it with 98 they were using.

[CrazyKillerMan 0]

A P3 450 is actually quite a bit faster than a K6-2.

 

It shouldnt be too bad, but...sorry to say this, but the k6-2 is a very crippled processor compared to its intel competitor.

 

My roomate has a k6-2 500 and he can barely run 98 with autocad

[Galilee 0]

Yes I know. K6-2 is a terrible cpu. But if I am to upgrade the machine (it's my girlfriends computer) I have to change the motherboard also.

I have used WinMe on it, but apparently it doesnt like WinMe. After few weeks WinMe starts to bug on me.

 

But maybe if I tweak the hell out of WinXP Home, and turn of all the fancy stuff I can get a atleast stable system. She only uses the computer to surf the internet, and use ICQ

[jwl812 0]

I would disagree about the k6-2 being a terrible CPU. The K6-2 is an admirable milestone in personal computing. It single handedly paved the way for the ATHLON (which is the CPU of choice for most manufacturers) and without it we all would be paying big money, whatever Intel wanted us to pay for an inferior CPU, the P4 (what a joke).

[Four and Twenty 0]

Quote:

I It single handedly paved the way for the ATHLON (which is the CPU of choice for most manufacturers)

um where do you get ur facts buddy. Intel owns the oem market. AMD's strongest market is the penny pinching enthusiast market. AMD makes chips for less money than intel and mhz for mhz they are faster, but that doesn't neccisarily make them better. I for instance need a stable reliable dual processor workstation to suit my needs. Intel/Intel is the only solution for me at this time. If you are a gamer then it makes sense to go with AMD as they are cheeper and mhz for mhz they are faster. but so what i am getting really sick of this intel amd debate. You can't just say that amd is better all around cause they are cheaper and faster. You need to find the processor and chipset that will suit your needs. I rarely play games but i do alot of photoshop work and multitasking. for me dual p3 on the i840 is the cheapest most stable best solution for me.

[clutch 1]

The CPU of choice for most manufacturers?

 

LOL!

[three 0]

again? lol....i have to agree though, the k62 does pretty much suck a$$ when compared to a p2, i was running a p2 clocked at 333mhz and it was out performing a k62 clocked at 400mhz. i still don't regret purchasing a k62 450mhz for my system, if i didn't i would still be pretty clueless about pc's, all the trouble shooting, tearing apart of the pc just to get it to work really helped me get more understanding of pc's and got me to really enjoy computers more, how ironic. k62+ali chipset...man, that was mere hell!

 

but i'm more than happy with my t-bird, running xp for 183hrs now! and with a geforce2mx hehe

[Galilee 0]

Even though K6-2 was bad, doesnt mean Duron/Athlon is bad. There is a drastic difference between the two cpu's.

Athlon kicks some serious ***

[RoninCS 0]

Just wanted to put in my 2 cents:

 

 

 

 

This is a benchmark I did on one of my base systems. Nothing special about the system, no tweaks in either of the benchmarks. The OCing is done via the Bios via FSB. Even at base speed, the P4 2.0GHz (right now at a $300 price difference). It's not just about creating an inexpensive competitive CPU. It's about the performance the CPU provides. Is it fact that most manufacturers are still using Intel for their systems (computer manufacturers, that is)? Yup, very much so. Could be that AMD has left a bad taste in their mouth from the K6-2/3 CPU's. Could be a lot of other things. But having been an Intel user for quite some time up to the release of the Athlons, and still being an Intel user on 8 of my systems, I'll take the AMD path over the Intel one bar none. There is no comparison.

 

Oh, forgot to put the actual system specs of the system of the test:

 

 

FIC AD11

1.4GHz DDR Tbird

512MB of PC2100

27.3GB IBM 7200RPM

[clutch 1]

My "LOL" is in reference to AMD being the choice of "most" manufacturers, and that isn't true. So, that's what I am working with. Three and I already went on with this, and I look for stability and compatibility since speed isn't an issue for me anymore (I have a p3 733 at work and a p3 933@1085 at home). When I start seeing a major reduction in patches and stupid compatibility issues with the majority of motherboards supporting AMD processors, I (and probably more major manufacturers) will look much more seriously at them.

 

This mentality also extends to video cards, however I do need performance as well as stability. This is why I choose nVidia (or Matrox) for workstations. If I need a server with a simple video chipset, I just leave the ATi solution in it. ATi does offer some really nice features on paper, but I (and others) have been burned over and over again by their poor drivers.

[thymios 0]

RoninCS. I wouldn't have a reason to disagree with you about the power of thunderbird processors. What concerns me though about AMD's processors(and trust me i don't have any reason at all to support Intel) is the lack of faith i have towards VIA chipsets.If there is a VIA based motherboard that really kicks then why not use AMD. But since most VIA's chipsets are crap it's obvious that many users including me will stick to Intel for the simple reason of Intel chipset motherboards that 90% rocks big time.

And something last.Some people care a lot about memory speed. You haven't included in your benchmark screenshots the memory benchmark. That's were P4 is almost 2 times faster than AMD. I know that DDR is way cheaper that RDRAM but some people care about that. I do video rendering that takes CPU to it's limits and needs fast memory. I tried it on AMD's with DDR and i didn't get the same results that i have in P4's.I mean try and encode a full resolution movie using for exampe DiVX codec and then try to open a program (even calculator!) when you have AMD(not a good idea at all, almost 99% sure the stupid VIA m/board will fail and a crash is imminent).

That's all, once again i am saying clearrly that I am really glad that AMD exists and that it's kicking Intel's @ss every now and then, otherwise a CPU would cost 2000$ by now.It's good to have competition on the market.

[trohbock 0]

I'm sorry I can't help but enter the converstation right here. I have to agree with Thymios. There is a lot of mitigating factors in the choosing of chips. Just because something is a little bit faster does not make it better, I've had both AMD and Pentiums and run both in my office right now, yes AMD starts out faster, but in the long run I'd take A Intel system over AMD 10 to 1. I could go into all the reasons but I won't. It all depends on what you use your computer for, I have to have reliability and driver compatability, and that's why I use Intel, face it the big names are going to be more compatible. Anyway, I felt the need to vent on the subject so thanks. Peace

[RoninCS 0]

We could banter this issue back and forth. VIA chipsets were brought up. Is this the only chipset for AMD based motherboards? Hardly. AMD chipsets, SiS, ALi, there are several other alternatives. Stability? The stability is in the system itself and the components as a whole, not one specific area of the system (again, you're talking motherboards, not CPU's). I never argued the point of Intel still being the manufacturer's choice, but I also put in why I felt that was the case.

 

Pertaining to the VIA chipsets, my personal experience has been very good. From the KT133 to the KT266A, I've been satisfied with the results. Why does VIA put out updates? To enhance the performance, for one. Sometimes there are other issues that are addressed, but I'd hardly say there was a problem with them (aside from the issue VIA has had with AGP, which is resolved by buying a board with a Northbridge other than VIA, but not necessary anymore, as those issues were MUCH more prominent at the induction of the Athlon).

 

You brought up the speed of RAM. RAMBUS latency is hellaciously slow in real world applications, as well as games. It's not a gamers machine, and Intel shot themselves in the foot by going with RAMBUS. 400MHz FSB? It runs slower than a 133. I've got Xeons, and a P4 to boot. If you'd like, I'll be more than happy to run those benches. Let me stress again that I was an Intel user for quite some time. I moved to AMD for multiple reasons:

 

1. More bang for my buck

2. Better performance

3. Massive stability and speed improvements from the K6 line

 

I could go on, but there's no need. This is simply my expression of my opinion based on 12 years of background in the industry, and literally weeks of testing on a multitude of test beds.

 

Note again that AMD CPU's aren't a *little* bit faster. The benchmarks there clearly show that a 600MHz slower CPU dusts the P4 2.0GHz. I hardly see that as a small difference, especially for the cost comparison. I have no less than 17 computers in my home (12 of which in an AS400 rack) that serve multiple purposes. From Celeron 2's to P4's to Athlon MP's. I test time and again, using multiple different formats (OS, RAM, Vid, programs and benchmarking tools). The reason I posted the shots above were because the system that was tested was nothing special. Very basic, not beefed up, just a fresh install with the proper drivers. Still an eye opening, imho.

[thymios 0]

First of all i have to say that it's perfectly normal for each of us to have different opinions.It's just a conversation we are doing and i am not trying to convince anybody that one system is better than the other.

Quote:

Is this the only chipset for AMD based motherboards? Hardly. AMD chipsets, SiS, ALi, there are several other alternatives.

Ronin I respect your experience and i understand that you worked on a lot of systems throughout the years. What i am saying about AMD and their motherboards(any including VIA) is based on things that users compain about.I've got friends that complain, i've seen numerous posts here complaining about VIA or AMD, and i've built myself quite a lot of systems, concluding that Intel processors and Intel based motherboards are state of the art in terms of STABILITY and never gave me or anyone else i know problems.

Quote:

Originally posted by RoninCS

From the KT133 to the KT266A, I've been satisfied with the results. Why does VIA put out updates? To enhance the performance, for one.

I don't have to remind you the bummer of VIA's apollo pro 133, turning to apollo Pro 133A in order to avoid possible hanging from the poor customers who purchased the first(i remind you the refund policy of VIA for the pro 133 motherboards).

Quote:

Originally posted by RoninCS

You brought up the speed of RAM. RAMBUS latency is hellaciously slow in real world applications, as well as games. It's not a gamers machine, and Intel shot themselves in the foot by going with RAMBUS. 400MHz FSB? It runs slower than a 133.

I suggest you check your benchmarks about that.And don't tell me that benchmarks are synthetic and don't represent the real thing cause i am going to tell you the same exactly think about the CPU and FPU benchmarks you posted.

 

And one last thing.Wait for a while when applications will fully support the SSE2 instructions of the P4 and then do some tests again. P4 is a future product and right now it only shows a small amount of it's real potential.You want me to talk about Lightwave? 3dStudio Max? Bryce? Director? and other processing hungry programs that users will prefer to run them on a P4 machine (if they can't afford to buy a professional machine like a Silicon Graphics) rather than an AMD.

 

That's all for now, and don't misunderstand me, there's nothing personal, i'm just saying my opinion.

Take care of yourself.

[clutch 1]

I see you brought up SiS and ALI chipsets, and that's a great point. You see, long before being a sysadmin, I was a hardware spe[censored]t and then a production supervisor responsible to getting small LANs running Novell/NT/9x/DOS running and shipped to customers. We had countless problems with SiS chipsets (running simple Intel 486 and Pentium processors), and didn't even waste our time with ALI since they were worse off. Now, reading the front page of this site, I saw one of the "fixes" for some of the Via motherboards (of course it isn't there right now, I will have to ask Philipp where he got it) had to deal with making standby/hibernate work in Win2K/XP. Is this right, did they just now get that working? I knew I couldn't get it to work worth a damn with my Apollo Pro 133a mobo, but it's flawless in both of the BX-based units and my i815 chipset here (plus my i820 at work). Not to mention I had to always grab the newest 4-in-1s just to get acceptable performance, not some tweaking or minor adjustments, but to get decent performance for my processor. So, I have been working with systems for quite a while myself, and I can speak from experience when I state that Intel/Intel combinations have always worked extremely well for me. AMD needed Via when the Athlon first came out because they couldn't get a decent chipset out the door, and even what they had they couldn't keep in stock. AMD has fast processors, but I don't care for all of the issues that come attached to them.

[Four and Twenty 0]

yep intel/intel for me

i love my dually and i have only seen one bsod on it and that was due to crappy win2k drivers for my friends crappy dlink mp3 player

 

before i was on the i840 dually setup i ran a 440bx which never gave me one bsod (um except in win98 but that doesn't count really)

 

when setting up via/athlons for my friends i got nothing but problems with agp and pci compatibilty and especially bad problems with usb.

 

what is speed without stability and compatibility

 

and why the hell is everyone so down on rambus? I costs more cause it is faster. you pay for what you get. Rambus mem bandwidth = 3.2 gb per sec the fastest ddr is 2.7 gb per sec pc100 is 800 meg per sec and pc133 is like 1.2 gb per sec (not exactly sure about the pc133 but it is close to that)

i personally can't wait to have a dual p4 xeon/ rambus system

 

and like the other dude said the p4 has not been around long enough to show its true power. I can garantee you that any software package in the next few years that is worth a sh1t will have code optimizations for the p4.

[clutch 1]

Actually, the memory costs more because RAMBUS decided to charge all kinds of stupid royalties on the design. While it works in serial, the clock is so much higher that in straight number crunching it works quite fast (as typically seen in Q3 and rendering benchmarks). Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[RoninCS 0]

Different experiences all around, but I can certainly see where the loyalties lie.

[clutch 1]

Not so much loyalty for one thing, as complete hatred for another in some cases. I am holding out for the nForce chipset, since nVidia has been really good (in my experience) at providing stable drivers out of the box and getting much faster ones out regularly.

 

[Palos 0]

Come on guys, let's not bang the good old K6-2

I had a 300 MHz piece, if was doing a good job at the time. Coupled with my state of the art TNT2 videocard, ripped thru quake (1 of course).

 

Dunno why but it makes me nostalgic None of us will forget where and with what we started, or?

 

If anyone dares to ***** at my ex. 486 clone from Texas Instruments, that ran with 40 MHz, I WILL KICK HIS/HER A$$ ! (travel expenses included, lol). Only I know how much time I wasted trying to figure why TFX would crash with a FPU error...the FPU coprocessor was stuck the other way around in the add-on socket, muhhahahahhaa!

[ptweasel 0]

Quote:

How will Windows XP Home edition run on this machine:

AMD K6-2 475 MHz
384MB PC100 RAM

?

And if it is slow, how can I make it faster? (without upgrading the whole system). I plan to turn of Luna and just use the standard classic Windows look. Anything else I can turn off? System Restore maybe.

I have a K6-2 400 box with 256MB PC100 and it runs XP just fine. I put a GeForce 2 MX in it and it usually only drops below 40fps in UT on really big maps. Turn of system restore, and use some tweaks you can find on this site. APK had a really good guide around here somewhere for disabling unneeded services in Windows 2000 that translates really well to XP, and will help a lot.

If decide to go for it (if you haven't already), check the compatibility lists on this site, and download all the drivers you're going to need ahead of time. Some of XP's built in drivers work really well, but others but others don't quite cut it. And if your motherboard is fairly old, you might consider flashing to the newest BIOS just to be safe.

[enio 0]

Quote:

penny pinching

says 4and20, well glad to know that u swimm in money, why dont u throw me, "poor entusiast" some. Did u ever try an athlon based system. Dont have anything against intel but i get mad when somebody badmouth amd coz they are "unreliable" and "crashing all the time", maybe thats why amd is stealing big share of the intels market, who cares if it crashes ten times per minute if its so cheap............<(insert sarcastic thougt there) I happen to have 2 amd sys(know great deal of guys that have them also) and i didn't see crash in ages(forgot completely that crashes are posible) tried all kinds of win based sys, ended with XP and im pleased with amd !!!!!!

[isochar 0]

I'm running a TigerMP right now, nothing but headaches for the past month. Can't wait until the Xeon 2.0A's come out so I can ditch this thing.