Compaq Presario AMD K6 233MHz vs Intel Pentium 233MHz MMX
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- Compaq 2
In the previous video ( • Compaq Presario 4540 F... ) you were introduced to my little Compaq Presario 4540.
In this video we’re going to be comparing the AMD K6 233 with the Intel Pentium MMX 233MHz
Before we’ll be running some benchmarks and showing you the result, we will put it back to its factory default settings with Windows 95.
We’ll go over the BIOS real quick and I’ll also show you some it issues I had during this video
Enjoy
0:00 - Introduction
0:57 - Booting and BIOS
1:49 - Restoring back to Windows 95
3:44 - The windows 95 experience
4:40 - The Compaq experience
6:30 - SimCity 2000 Network Edition
7:18 - MS Works 4.0
7:48 - QuickTime MoviePlayer
8:16 - Compaq Diagnostics
8:47 - Palace Server
9:15 - Memory issues
9:58 - BigFoot issues
10:50 - Benchmarking time
12:30 - SuperScape VGA Benchmark
14:11 - Chris’s 3D Benchmark
14:50 - PCPlayer Benchmark
15:58 - Doom Benchmark
16:36 - Quake Benchmark
17:55 - Norton System Information
18:45 - WinBench 99
19:13 - Outro
#Compaq #Intel #AMD 
Наука
This is basically the same model Compaq I had as a kid growing up in the 90's. It was my family's first computer, my dad bought it at Circuit City in the US. Ours came with PGA Tour 95, quite a fun golf game for the time! It also came with a copy of Compton's Encyclopedia I actually ended up using for some bona fide school work.
Compaq made outstanding PCs, but not in the home sector. I worked with many of their professional lines going all the way back to the luggable (my first x86 PC). The M line, though ridiculously expensive was an outstanding machine. The proliant line was great as well. The deskpro machine was when even their enterprise machines started going downhill. I had to supervise the swapping out of like 1000 bigfoot hard drives with the deskpro 2000 line in my work.
That answered questions I asked 25 years ago! It is very interesting how the Pentium 233MMX was only slightly faster than the 200MMX. This was experienced in real life when we all thought the 233MMX would be quite fast and it really wasn't any better than the 200MMX, a barely noticeable difference in the real world and not worth the extra expense. Another interesting video. 😊👍
I think the K6's results for quake are surprisingly good: it's only about 10% slower than the Pentium MMX 233, not a huge deal IMHO
Yea 4 FPS is not that big of a deal. I ran quake on a AMD K5 PR-133 on my Tyan Tomcat III MB(still own)with a S3 VIRGE 4MB card and it ran fine. I was always more than happy using it.
A big deal in price though, back in the mid-late 90's Intel was price gouging Pentiums around $350-500, while a K6 and K6-2 could be around $250-275 or even less.
@@wildbilltexas That is true in price. Thats why I always looked at AMD. I knew and know people thru the years that bragged about getting the 3 or 4 more frames and for me I always though So what you spent 2 or 3 times on a cpu that for the most part majority of people wouldn't even notice the difference if you didn't tell them what cpu was in the computer to begin with. For me AMD was always a better bang for my dollar.
@@clintthompson4100 i had both amd and intel cpus over the years
i had bad luck to not know the rules of the game when it comes to performance and had core e8300 on single memory channel nforce chipset (yes i overpayed majorly) but ever since then i stick back to my roots and back to amd apus and now ryzen 3 (first gen on 2nd gen board, need to get g model and get rid of that 1030 from my mini case though)
i started from 286 of unknown maker then "authentic amd" 5x86 133, k6 166, then celeron northwood 2000 and back to pentium 3 tualatin up until modern era of computers when i actually could aford to buy new parts
fun thing is in my country intel cpu's on used market can be bought for a bottle of coke, amd... 30$ minimum regardless what that is.
on a silly note i would really love to see amd k6-3+ with that magic multiplier override set for it to ignore jumper settings and run on full speed on an old motherboard like this and dominate all the benchmarks
@@clintthompson4100 I'm glad AMD are good again, i had the FX-6300, that wasn't exactly great but hey, my Ryzen 5 2600 is amazing so who cares, i still could play most of my games without issues :)
Ahh some nice processors. I have them too, nice to see some benchmarking! Thanks for the video.
Nooooooooo R.I.P Quantum Bigfoot. Irrationally and for no reason at all, I love those drives. My 19.2GB TS drive is the holy grail of my parts collection, IMO.
But basically every Quantum Bigfoot died like 2 decades ago. That's just what they did well.
I'm pleased to see that you completed the mouse tutorial and can now use one!
Very nice! The K6 was (and is) a great little chip. Great value at the time!
Those poor Bigfoot drives, they were never meant to be. Arguably the worst hard drive ever, despite the amazing idea behind them. They just kept failing, and failing, and failing...
Great vid. I actually bought this exact model a year or so ago. Glad to see I’m not the only one who likes the “small” form factor Compaqs. I’m doing a P233mmx swap, Voodoo2, and Awe64 for mine.
Would have been awesome to see a K6-2 233 thrown in for good measure. I love how many options there are for comparison at the 233 mhz point.
Got another Presario with a k6-2 (dunno what speed) but will put that one against the Pentium II and then see how everything compares...
Yes, (Super) Socket 7 is really great.
@@Tom2404 Slot one will always be retro king :)
K6-2 will be faster due to having 3 levels of cache with l3 running at bus speed where p2 l2 runs half of cpu since its off die why ppro especially with 1mb cache will beat p2 also 3d now will help in games
@@primus711 Only K6-2+/3/3+ have Internal L2 cache
wait! 5:13 that's the girl nVidia used for years in the "color Correction" tab of the Detonator drivers!
Yeah! That's "stock photo girl"!
I love seeing the case that Intel system is using, I had the exact same case. Brings back a lot of memories.
The very basic DOS CPU benchmarks are very sensitive to the timing of a small group of instructions, also notable for the meteoric results of NEC V30/V20 versus 8086/8088
these DOS benchmarks always seemed strange to me. they never seem very representative of actual performance. i only really care about doom and quake in this collection
my first benchmark at the time funnily enough was wingroove, a midi player with custom voices that sounded way better than any sound card. its benchmark gave your pc a relative score compared to a pentium 100mhz with a sound blaster 16. both the audio card and the cpu influenced it (audio cards only really made a difference for slow computers), but it was cool seeing that number grow absolutely huge with each upgrade.
then i switched to TestCPU, a windows95 cpu benchmark app with a huge assortment of cpus already in it. i have most of my computers starting from a pentium 2 400 registered in its database that i still drag with me to this day. Aside from my computers, it comes from all sorts of stuff starting with a 386 @ 20mhz going up to a pentium 3 at 1050mhz (lots of stuff above that in my copy, but that was all me). it's the only place i can compare my 486 dx4 with my ryzen 5800x3d, as underutilized the 5800x3d might be by it. at least cache speed is somewhat representative, relatively speaking. (dx4 scores 29mb/s, ryzen 5800x3d scores 75gb/s)
btw, in a calculation test a pentium 233mmx score 70, the k6 233 scores 81, and the 5800x3d scores 3971. this bench does it no favors, it loses out to the 5600x in every test, lol.
that reminds me, gotta copy that to my laptop and include that 10750u in the database
PHILS benchmark compilation is the greatest thing ever
I built a k6 300 back in the day. I was happy with it. Good CPU for the price.
I currently have a AMD k6-2 300.. however a buddy of mine overclocked it to 400mhz for me
Had a Compaq 4704 back in the day. Put a Voodoo card in it without any other modifications and it was fantastic at the time. The Compaq restore disk brings back some memories. Had to restore the PC quite a lot in those days, but it ran so much better after doing so. Thanks for the video!
Just falling in right! I was on the fence between a K6 and a Pentium, both at 166Mhz. One part of me wants to keep an AMD streak (from the 386 up to my Ryzen5), and one part wanting some ultimate Pentium pre-MMX build.
Always liked AMD ... always hd very high regards for companies like that willing to compete with companies like Intel
@@RetroSpector78 Amen to that!!!!
@@RetroSpector78 ironically, Intel kick-started AMD, that’s why it does feel like a ‘son vs. father’ kind of rivalry to me rather than the classic underdog narrative
Great little PC for DOS and early windows software and games. Will be nice to see 3dfx addon card for ultimate gamers experience
I have the same keyboard. My grandpa had got the same computer. Thx for this review
Brings back memories from my 90's - got 4452 aool-in-one, since then I was hooked in IT :)
*all-in-one
One of my old DIY NAS server was based on a k6-2-333 platform (overclocked to 400MHz :3). It was a beast for a long time.
Great Benchmarks 😁
Oh yeah, the Compaq that Steve Jobs called ugly on the original iMac introduction.
So it seems Compaq moved away from their own bios seeing this one is made by Phoenix. Kinda neat it has a boot menu, not many biosses of the time had that feature. Even more interesting is that Compaq’s restore CD allows the Windows 95 setup to be booted straight of the CD without needing a boot floppy like the retail versions of Windows. Guess certain OEM’s could customise the setup.
I have this exact same compaq PC! I must have downloaded the exact same compaq system restore disk to because I got stuck at that same part where you have to put the serial number in. the one on the back would not work for me either. glad you were able to get it to work!
I have a nearly identical one as well (specifically a Presario 4505) but can't find a suitable restore disc, do you have a link?
when he says "Compaq Splash Logo".. sounds like "Compaq Flash Logo" lol
U can use the IDE to SATA adapter to adapt IDE interface to newer SATA HDD or SSD. Had to do this for my clone AMD K6 machine after all the IDE drives started dying one by one.
Or just use an SD to IDE adapter, that’s what I do on my retro machines.
Compaq restore CD's became something like a collection here. Later CD's don't require a model number, I guess...Still have a few Windows 2000 and XP Restore disks. With various service packs. Really helpful if your original CD is not readable anymore.
you should try compiling a linux kernel , the AMD was king at that back in the day
@Franky Padilla The King is back 😅
Linux sucks, especially back then.
5:45 That's called a "click"!? Wow! I never knew that! This is why I love your channel. I learn so many new things! #theMoreYouKnow 😹🖱️
Gotta love the information superhighway
The K6 was one of my Linux work stations for some time.
Can imagine this being a good combo.
@@RetroSpector78 Come to think of it, I did some scientific computations on this CPU as well. Image processing, asteroid detection, and orbit calculations.
How well it ran on linux ?
@@X-RAGE Very well. I think Linux took better advantage of the K6 than Windoze did.
@@AndrewTubbiolo thanks, im asking because im actually building an Asus P55TP4N Socket 7 FX pc and im thinking about using my Evergreen Spectra with K6-2 400mhz in it since the Pentium MMX will not work despite having the dual voltage rail unpopulated
Also i want to dualboot in scsi windows 98 and Red Hat Linux 5.2 that’s why im asking
Ah... The restore process brought back some memories.
I miss my old k6-2
6:30 - it seems that the Network version of Sim City 2K has the server software. Given that the client has the option to use TCP via DirectPlay, it should be possible to run the server on localhost.
Don't give us HOPE
X___________X
release the files on dropbox or something, humanity needs that
My Voodoo2 SLI setup (100MHz clock) pulls up to an extra 60w from the wall during benchmarking. I'm sure a single Voodoo1 would be far less but I've never tested it for power draw.
I don't think it was this exact model, but my dad had a Compaq Presario that I used to play The Sims 1 on back in 2000 or so. good memories.
OMG imagine the load times :O
@@FeelingShred yeah, wasn't the speediest thing in the world, but I was 5 years old so I didn't know much better lol.
@@howaboutsomesoyfood I know how it feels, I think I made it through until late 1999 with a 486-133MHz... incredibly enough, that thing was still able to run most games I wanted to play... Pentium 3 later on that year was like a spaceship from the future... doesn't make a difference to me anyway since I still play old DOS games for the most part
Hi RetroSpector, How do you capture footage from BIOS, DOS and Windows 9x etc?
I have an OSSC which my Retro PC's are rigged up to but I can't see to capture footage with my Hauppauge HD PVR 60 as I assume it doesn't like the resolution its getting from the OSSC?
Simcity 2000 Network Edition is a LAN game, you need to run the game once as server on a PC and then on other PCs on the same network connect as players.
There are couple of patches for online server browsing that actually allows to online play, and compatibility patches up to windows 10.
Wow i thought old games servers dead, but holy shit ❤️
@@MidnightPixies The game has the server built into itself
@@Schule04 many games have that ability... Unreal Tournament franchise as a whole, DooM, Quake..
Excellent AMD K6-233MHz. I LOVE AMD. 😍😍😍
I love this stuff
I do live my classic K6 cpus. Had a k6-2 350 and later a 450 and that thing was a beast for it's time. If i ever build a pentium2 era machine again, i'd definitely go AMD k6 series again.
Good thing I got rid of my Pentium 2 machine I had from an estate sale and kept the AMD k6-2..
I personally prefer using Win95 on computers older than around 1999. It's noticeably faster than Win98, and anything you'd want to run on a computer like this will run fine on Win95 anyway.
I tend to agree, I’ve even heard people say that 95 wasn’t stable compared to 98 but my experience was the opposite.
In fact...unpopular opinion, but I really like Millennium Edition, never had any problems with it. I used 95 for so long, then used 98 for a really short time before moving to ME that I couldn’t go back. I’ve built loads of retro systems and tried to use 98 many times but just can’t get on with it, for me it’s either 95 or ME.
Should really try out some of those early win95 3d games with a voodoo 1
@@jonchapman6821 Yeah, I haven't had too many stability issues with 95 either.
Some nice Retro hardware. the memories
What sticks out in my mind the most about those Compaq Presario's is how poorly optimised the factory default installation of Windows was. I never saw one that didn't suffer from extremely low available Resources, and there was absolutely nothing you could do to increase the Resource Heap. It would take longer to reset things to use fewer resources than it did to do a clean install of Windows and the applications the CORRECT way from an actual Windows disk along with all of the program disks. I absolutely despised those pieces of crappola.
Now the better DeskPro series was different. They actually built them fairly decently and didn't install all of the bloat so you didn't have Resource Issues unless you decided to run too many programs at once.
Great ! I had pentium 2 233mhz in 1998 and was awesome 🙂
This is good to know. I have an ibm aptiva with amd k6-2 333 that I replace the cpu with an intel 233 just because I prefer intel but I think I will put the amd back in it not because it’s faster but because you can down clock the amd to a 286 cpu.
Held up surprisingly well, of course that Quake performance was very important back in the day :) would like to see a K6-2 vs Pentium 2 shootout, obviously can't compare with the same motherboard like this test though.
Have an early Pentium II 233 and another Presario with an AMD K6-2
It didn't applied only in Quake. Also, try it in 640x480, and you'll see why Pentium II was far more superior.
It applied also in many 3D games, that started to grow in popularity, so people were affraid to take AMD k6. Because Pentium had better FPU. I would not risk it in that time too, and would take Pentium instead. At the end, we know, it was not so terrible, and that many 3D games, actually didnt took so big hit when FPU was weak, but we could not know after Quake. That's why many took Pentium anyway, so they have insurance for better FPU... also quake 2 was about to came out during 1997. Noone would risk K6, who liked Quake, cause also Hexen II was released fall 1997, and it was FPU dependant, as it was built on Quake engine.
People knew, many games will be based upon Quake engines, so that's why Pentium was better bet. Here, it seems, like K6-233 is better, but actually no. Pentium 233 MMX was better take. Namely, best take was of course Pentium MMX 166, good motherboard, and overclock it to 225 (75x3).
@@warrax111 Pentium 2 yes, K6 was introduced to hang with the higher clocked late model Pentiums though.
Of course K7 fixed all of the problems AMD had keeping up by being just plain better than the Pentium 3 :)
@@lemagreengreen Not true. I would take Celeron II, going back in time. Not AMD.
First chipsets were problematics. First AMD, that was worth to take over Pentium (in that time 4), was Athlon XP on KT266A chipset.
I owned Thunderbird system in 2002, with KT133A chipset, and it was problematic. Not so, as VIA MVP3, but still.
Would not take those again. But super7 platform was true hell. Never again. Should paid little more for BX chipset, and take lesser Celeron (300A) and overclock it to 450.
@@warrax111 being introduced to do something doesn't mean it achieved it.
as for athlons, my athlon @ 700mhz (that was a cartridge/slot cpu still) walked all over my friend's peniutm 3 @ 800mhz. Aside from slightly better IPC for most applications, AMD was also ahead in the mhz race (first to 1ghz). amd overtook intel with the first athlon and only started losing again when core2duo came out. then it lost 10 years straight until ryzen.
i've owned all sorts of athlons and athlons xps and i have absolutely no idea what you mean by problematic. they were solid, awesome cpus. late on with the nforce2 boards then, just computing perfection. i guess early ones didn't have thermal throttling so if you mounted the cooler wrong they would overheat until they froze or fried. a problem easily solved by installing the cooler correctly. i think athlon xps fixed this issue tho, they were flawless and just better choices than any pentium 4.
had one of these machines, i swapped to a 233mmx due to the floating point performance and mmx issues with a pci modem that used mmx for its drivers. I noticed the pentium mmx was smoother in games with my creative 3dfx banshee pci.
John De Lance walked me through my compaq registration.
@@YoureUsingWordsIncorrectly He certainly did. heres the youtube video of it.
ruclips.net/video/cKD9XAP_16k/видео.html
I had a amd k6 back in the day in a emachines desktop
So, was the Pressrio "cheating" in the know benchmarks? Thanks for a good video!
We had a Pentium 233mmx when I was in Jr high/high school. I miss that computer sigh
K6-2 for life
nice compaq persario multimedia rocket pc
I seem to remember the reason that Quake runs better on the Intel CPUs was because the Intel CPUs had 2 ALUs and one FPU as a separate unit, so a programmer could design their program to essentially run 3 calculations the same time.
AMD K6 was not actually an x86 CPU, but a RISC86 core with a x86 translation stage, the RISC approach meant that it could often perform commands and such faster than a comparably clocked Intel CPU, however, if I recall correctly, the command translator could only run 2 commands at once, so it would be at a disadvantage for software that had a mix of both integer and FP commands.
I assume the benchmarks that give the K6 a oddly high score is simply using a subset of commands for the test that benefit from the RISC approach of the CPU.
I actually didn't think that you were going to mention Cyrix, because that would technically be beating a dead horse. 😂
Chris's 3d benchmark is mostly dependent on the graphics card you need a fast dos card to push big numbers on that. Ark logic, ET 6000, matrox etc
This was my very first computer ..what times...
I am surprised about the performance of this cpu :)
10:27 -- old-school boot choice menu... Noooooice
Those are tests im interested in. Thank you wery much. I have a proposal for you to take those tests and compare them with amd k6-2 233, cuz it has 3dnow function to see if new wersion of k6 did do beter in that Quake 3D test. Its mmx and 3dnow cpu.
I'd like to find an old crt with Side mount speakers, as some were pretty decent. Used to have a set that were 20w each side
I'm wondering what Id Software's "Intel optimisations" for Quake were. In theory, both processors have the same instruction set with MMX extensions, so I'm guessing it's down to subtle differences in the way those instructions were micro-coded.
I've seen Quake 1 running on a 486 DX 100, so I'm not sure it use MMX.
Quake was available in 1996, about one year before the Pentium MMX.
A nice reminder that MHz (or GHz) alone does not equate to performance -- 3 different CPUs, 2 of them made by Intel, all clocked at 233 MHz achieving measurably different performances. This would become even more evident in the Pentium 4 versus Athlon and Athlon 64 era, and then again with Intel's introduction of the frankly amazing Core 2.
The 2 big problems I saw back in the day was garbage motherboards and cooling solutions. The place I was working with stuck with Intel procs. that came with stock intel fans on them. Though I do want to point out. Even though we was a mostly intel only shop. We did love the cyrix, winchip, etc etc. 486dlc-40 chips.
4:55 Macromedia Director? Well, that's my bet.
Back in the day I build my own clone with a K6-233
My friend had an Intel Pentium 166MMX... he was so certain his PC was faster then mine because I had a budget AMD Chip...
AMD was always excellent in it's early days.
Funny story - I had a similar one, but in my experience back then the K6-233 marginally beat the MMX-233 across the board - EVEN in the infamous FPU-heavy tasks. I remember I had a friend with an MMX-233 who at some point got convinced his motherboard of CPU were faulty, as we ran repeated benchmarks and his Pentium always fell a little short from my K6.
Even funnier is...fast forward 25+ years, I found a K6-200 and an MMX 200 in my old parts stash. Tested them on the same SS7 board...literally same everything, just swapped the CPUs and ran the tests (they use the very same settings except for vcore). Well...I'll be damned, but the K6 still comes out on top - even in supposedly unfavourable 3D workloads such as Quake III Arena, 3D Mark 99/2000, Unreal Tournament and Drakan. Pure FPU benchmarks DO show the K6 lagging slightly behind, but real world applications invert the picture.
regarding the k6 high scores in norton si, i wouldnt be surprised if its integer heavy and if memory serves, the k6 integer performance bested that of the pentium.
thank you for sahre. that is my cpu in my children
I used a Voodoo 2 in my Presario 4540 just fine.
Also 75W psu ?
@@RetroSpector78 A Voodoo 2 takes about 15 W.
my aunt had this exact computer, main selling point was the DVD drive, and could never figure out how to get it to actually play DVDs... it used a hardware DVD decoder, plugged the drive into the videocard.
It's funny, we've come full circle on mouse usage. There are people now that have once again, never used a mouse, since most people use laptops, phones, and tablets.
I have a history lesson from old time - read it you like that : You can install either IE 4 or later 5 and 5.5 but with IE 5.0 It will take away maybe 100mhz cpu power , thus making the compuer slower- same happens if you install netscape 6.0 - the internet turns into a slow drawl and I had a Amd k6-2 533 mhz (but windows 95 )-If you could game before -after you might not . On oldwin 95 You can install directX 3 ( differnt versions) dx 5 ,dx 6 and 6.2 , dx 7 ( which a game like Unreal wants but can run on earlier versions) and directx 8.0 (dx8 might make your win95 computer slower) Some gpu drivers from nvidia like from the 12 (twelve) supports directX8 -it made my nvidia card slower (like much).
You could do a software benchmark from the old 3dmark firm . I beive they had 3mark year 1999 and 2000 software versions - not shure if it actually were 2 programs with this name or this firm (shure ) - ( i guess they might need a later directX like 7 or later and IE4 at least so the benchmarking might just kill the computer performance wise ) . Edit 2: I just remember- they need that apg drivers are installed meaning you need version windows 95 - 2.5 at least - , this win95 came with usb and agp drivers which were not included in win95 osr2.0
4 FPS and 2 FPS is not BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER. Especially compared to the larger gaps some of the AMD wins were over the Intel. The Pentium 2 doesn't even matter because it is a completely different chip class. You would need a Super socket 7 and K6-II to compare to the Pentium II properly. At higher mhz like 500 even a K6-III would be the proper comparison.
the era where OS software actually found the drivers it needed for sound and video
and YES, kiddies! Back when Socket 7 we had 3 different CPU manufacturers to the same Socket! :-O OMG, MINDBLOWN, etc. (no IDT CPUs in Denmark back then)
..if I could just get that K6-III 400MHz (AHX) to max my first build(1997) out...I need those 256KB cache :-/
@HoboWild Not shock from windows 98... windows 98 wasnt so demanding. It needed only more RAM. Shock was from Celeron. Particulary Celeron A (august 1998). That made socket 7 system obsolete, as you could easily got 450 Celeron, with 100 Mhz FSB. That thing was like 3-4x faster, than usual bargain socket 7 system, to which most ex-USSR and other poor countries upgraded from 486. Typical PC user, had 486 during 1995-1997, then upgraded in 1997 or realy 1998 to socket 7, because 486 was unusable from mid 1997 up. (except maybe am5x86 133 mhz). 3d Games basicaly made 486 obsolete. Also people wanted to play in 640x480 and higher resolution finally, for that 486 system was compeltly unusable.
But, it was bad upgrade to upgrade to socket 7 in 1997. One should wait one year, and take Celeron 300 overclocked to 450. OR, at least supersocket 7 system in late 1998, based on 100 MHz FSB and AGP slot.
I was also one of ex-USSr unlucky who upgraded to Pentium 133, in late 1997. (from 486 DX2-66). So bad decision. In half year, it was obsolete. Should wait for Celeron for sure.
I still have my JBL speakers from a 1999 Compaq.
The K6 was a great dos chip. And great in 16 bit code in general. Getting into the mire of 32 bit code though was a leveling of the play field. The VX Chipset also never really played well with the Pentium MMX either. The TX chipset when used with SD ram and good tuning allowed it to scale a bit better than the K6, as it was advertised to have features exclusively for the Intel MMX that the K6 didn't take advantage of, which is probably mostly fluff. Internally the ironic thing with their architectures is the Intel MMX has the higher IPC integer and phloating point processor blocks. But the K6 had the advantage of shorter pipeline and twice the L1 cache. So this would explain its better performance in older and more 'neutral' code. Things such as Write Allocate (and write combining?) are also advantageous when properly implemented. Which I would assume compaq did within the bios. It was only in more complex and optimized or maths heavy code where the K6 showed its weaknesses. That and under NT it seemed to go all bananas. The more complex code was the bane of the K6 and is what kept it in the value segment most of its run. However the K7... Ohh lordy the K7.......
Great video. I really enjoy these different takes on things.
I have also successfully ran a VooDoo2 in my compax of this model but that is with the pentium classic 200 which draws much less power than either the mmx or the k6. It seemed to work well enough with no hickups. Voodoo2 draws something like 2 amps at 5 volts. If you clock the k6 at 200mhz you can get away with runing it at 2.8 volts easily enough. And that will save quite a lot on the 5 volt rail and allow use of the V2
any extra compaq persario 5.25 12.7gb hard drives that i could do a product test for my youtube video sir
ow cool i had same pc wen i was young :9
I had a K6 200MHz back in the day. I was running it on an Asus TX-97x motherboard, and when setting the bus speed to 75MHz, giving a total clock speed of 225MHz, it actually gained a nice little performance boost. It's not so much about those extra 25MHz of total speed, but the bump in clock speed was really where it was at. Would it outperform the 233mmx? No sure, as I never had the chance to do a side-by-side comparison, but I know that my system normally scored higher than a P200mmx when comparing to test in computer magazines and such. Granted, that is saying that "An overclocked CPU beats a non-overclocked CPU", which shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody, but when taking into account the difference in price at the time, it made the K6 200MHz an exceptionally good bargain.
Of course you had good computer with K6 200. Overclocked to 225 mhz, beast.
You can see results here:
www.anandtech.com/show/33/4
also comparsion with pentium 233 MMX and various overclocks. Only to choose right motherboard (some chipsets were better with K6, some better with Pentiums).
Differances wasn't very big. With overclocked K6-200, you could be almost sure, you had top notch peformance in early to mid 1997, in late 1997, only Pentium II systems was ahead.
@@warrax111 The Pentium II was a beast when it was released, despite the half-speed L2 cache. A classmate of mine had one, and I will admit to being a bit envious, but still, I was very happy with my system.
@@rebeccaschade3987 Yes. I was on 486 DX2 - 66 , in 1997. So you could be happy. I would be jaleaus with k6-200 in that time. I so much dreamed about 640x480 resolution, but nah, no money to go out of 486. So we could not play Quake 1 (even in 320x200), and all games in 320x200. No money for voodoo, or riva 128. Only ati 3d Rage II, which kinda suck.
Then, we upgraded for cheap, to socket 7 in dec 1997, but only 133 Pentium. It was mistake. But i was kid, that upgrade was from father. I would choose pentium 166 MMX, price differance was worth. Also would overclock it to 200, but didnt know I could overclock with one jumper (was kid, didnt knwo about hw, only played games).
Btw Pentium II system were half -cache, but in that time, all socket 7 platform had L2 cache on motherboard!!! That meant eighter 66 Mhz, or 75 (after overclock). 100 mhz fsb didnt existed in that time. So even Pentium II 233 (lowest) had cache almost 2x speedy (233 / 2 = 112 Mhz L2 cache)
@@warrax111 Yes, I'm aware that external cache is obviously much slower, but the half-speed cache was considered a major flaw in the design at the time, and it was indeed proven to just that a short while later, by how a Celeron A, with one quarter the size cache, but running at full speed, could often outperform the Pentium II at similar clock speeds. But hey, it was a way of keeping cost down. Intel had learned from their experience with the Pentium Pro.
@@rebeccaschade3987 yes, but no processor had on-die cache, except Celeron, till AMD k6-3 in 1999. So mid 1997-mid 1999 (2 years), all except Celeron A, which came aug 1998, had slower Cache than Pentium II/III (half-speed). Also 128kb on die, was not faster all the time. Also pentium III, had SSE, which in that time, offered boost in many cases. So half-speed Cache, was considered good whole 2 years. (from 1997 to 1999). Would not call it major flaw. Just opposite, first year, it was prised for being big advantage in all reviews , including Anandtech. Then came Celeron A, which was big step away, because Intel could not sell Pentium II 350, 400 and 450 , because of that. Thats why it was Released Pentium III, with big advartisement because of SSE instruction, so they can price it again higher, and convice people, that it is good for internet and multimedia. That's why from early 1999 to mid 1999, there was famous / infamous advertisement campaign, also they named it Pentium III, so it seems better. In fact, it was still old Pentium II design, even without die shrunk, only Katmai instructions SSE were added. It was not true Pentium III. Just saying, why it happen. It was because of Celeron A, because of Pentium II could not be sold anymore for higher prices.
They need to make Pentium III, and SSE massive campaign , so they can keep it on same high prices as Pentium II were before Celeron A. Originally, Pentium III name was planned only for Coppermine.
I think motherboard with phoenix bios were terrible. They often had issues in booting Windows. Those simply stopped booting with error message "No Operating system found"... Though the hard drive had fully installed Windows.
Doom was really 2d but Carmack made it look 3d
Well that is debatable
8:41 -- hold up hold up... I thought you were looking at Pentium 233 and AMD 233 CPUs NOT A 386....
I have seen many quantum fireballs and bigfoots die on old pc's quantum's just didn't seem to have a long life in general it seems
Need K6-2 3d now patch on quake 2
16:42 You keep saying that... Quake was true 3d and being a true 3d engine relied heavily on Floating Point Operation to not look wonky and jittery. Intel CPUs had stronger FPU performance so they did better in quake. Doom was "2.5d" and didn't use the FPU. Quake was not "optimized for Intel processors" If anything the opposite was more correct. Intel had targeted the number crunching business sector for years and as a result the Pentium line was optimized for quake.
I mean, the results are rather in line with the FPU bench at the end there eh?
No surprise at all.
K6 kick the ass of the MMX.
would not say so. Different benchmarks, different games (particular 3D games, that was popular at the end of 1997, and during 1998... much better to take in 1997 Pentium 166 MMX, and overclock it to 225 Mhz), You also got better Quake 2 results, also Hexen II results... etc etc. 3D gaming started to be bread and butter in 1998. But for office work... yeah. Amd K6 was better take.
Wow! I had this exact PC from 7th grade thru about 11th when I finally upgraded. This model sucked. Maxed out at 48 megs of RAM and only 1 PCI slot. I liked the built in ES1887 Sound though. Many many hours of my life were spent on this machine.
Decades ago I remember a friend of mine who owned a Pentium who was blown away with the performance of my AMD gaming abilities, but alas as you confirmed my suspicions, after he installed his copy of Quake on my computer he had the last laugh because my poor AMD system quaked in it's boots and crapped out running it by a few frames slower.
Thankfully I wasn't a Quake Fan so I stuck with AMD because all my games that I owned played a damn sight better on the AMD than the one Pentium that I was disgusted in it's power hungry sluggish performance, which BTW forced my first Power supply upgrade that really didn't do anything other than produce more heat, forcing me to resort to the first CPU OEM upgraded Fan assisted heatsink..
The only reason the AMD here is showing good benchmarks against Intel is because the AMD is a couple of years newer. Match a 1997 Pentium II against this 1997 AMD cpu, and you will have a different outcome.
@@tomservo5007 yerp.. that is the way it went, but what made AMD always the winner for me was it's bang for buck, sure it took a while for them to exceed Intels answer to their Answer but in the end Intel never made the cut because of that bang for buck advantage, not to over look my one and only bad experience with intel not coping well in Australia's hotter climate..
@@tomservo5007 Please stop lying?
@@dallesamllhals9161 please stop revising history. AMD in the early/mid 90s wasn't a CPU to pick for gaming.
@@tomservo5007 Oh yes it was. Are you very young or just very stupid? Try saying Cyrix next time.
Gah... won't really miss Quake, boring level design anyway LOL... will keep having fun with Heretic, Hexen, Screamer 2, Raptor Call of Shadows, Blood, Time Commando, Flying Corps (glorious OMG), Warcraft 2, KKND, Interstate 76, MDK, POD Gold (!!!!!!), NeedForSpeed:SE, Elder Scrolls Arena, Dungeon Master 2, Eye of Beholder 1 2 3, Worms 2, Terminator Future Shock, Powball, Skyroads, Jetpack (maybe Caesar 3 runs too?) Plenty of games xDD
not sure if Carmageddon (DOS) would run in 233 MHz? but it seemed to run in my crappy 486-133, so maybe it does
You need to use Fastvid in the Pentium 2, then there's absolutely no contest. With no Fastvid, the Pentium 2 results are meaningless.
Aaaand it's gone. Bigfoot doing what bigfoots do. sigh.
Where is Unreal? Where is Quake 2? Half-Life? Why there are no games from the generation cpus were done?
Saving those for the k6-2. Most of these things were released in 1998 I think and could use a beefier CPU and especially some 3dfx magic. Think this particular PC was more intented for dos gaming and some early win95 titles (perhaps with a voodoo1).
K6 with 64KB of L1 Cache vs Pentium MMX with 32KB?
..know nothing about about Pentium II. I stayed on Socket 7 with K6-2 and finally, nowadays on the old gal', a K6-III AHX and 256KB ♥
That machine is probably more 1998, high end late 97 was about 166MHz
Nope, 200-233 MHz late '97 is just about right!
@@dallesamllhals9161 Late 97 high-end was really 200-233. (eighter P1 MMX or PII 233).
166 MMX could be overclocked almost all time to 200 MMX, so no problem. And it was processor from january 1997.
@@warrax111 I built a K6 200MHz in Sep. 1997! = what the hell are you trying to say?
@@dallesamllhals9161 I was agreeing with your comment, dude. Not much more to say, when you understand it. :)
I repeat it, somaybe you missed it . "Late 97 high-end was really 200-233. (eighter P1 MMX or PII 233)."
that means, that you were right.
5:10 something about the jazz funk coupled to computers feels so pure, now it's rgb and, bad avicii copycat stock music and skrillex to the max. this ruins the feel, like it's toys for kids 10:03 drop the quantum and run the fuck away before it explodes on you
this is the kinda guy who wouldn't clean seagull droppings from his pc before using. dude's using the screen with a goddamn cobweb the size of a small dog in it.
try an intel celeron desktop pc processor chip
Why computer back then seems more fun?
because more normal people made them.
@@warrax111 they were more expensive and 30 times slower than a bad computer today yet so much more fun
@@kenkelvin4023 they were not slower. They were fastest available, at their time. Future is always unclear. Intel promised Moore's law even after 2010, but it stopped to apply.
So you always have to pay premium for fastest actual machines. Also, in those times, not so many factories were around, so components were more expensive. As you couldn't get it cheaper, people was willing to pay. If competition would not exists, they would probably remained about same pricy.
@@warrax111 so many amazing websites are now gone and every Internet forum is a shell of what it used to be ... I hate social media