UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
Get 3DNow! Message Board
Team 3DNow! SETI
K6-2 vs. K6-3 for SETI
profile | register | preferences | faq | search
|
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
|
Get 3DNow! Message Board Team 3DNow! SETI K6-2 vs. K6-3 for SETI
|
| Author | Topic: K6-2 vs. K6-3 for SETI |
| SubZero Celeron Worshipper |
 posted October 25, 1999 20:53  
I was wondering how much faster a unit could be completed using a K6-3 versus the K6-2. I am fixing to get a new chip and I am wondering which way to go. A K6-3 400 is about the same price as the K6-2 475. So is it better to go for the extra 75Mhz, or does the K6-3 offer better performance? IP: Logged |
| Pierce Follower of Athlon |
posted October 25, 1999 21:11
From what I hear about how RC5 works you would be better served with the higher MHZ K6-2. If you could manage a little extra cash go for a K7. I am waiting for some better motherboard venders to make Athlon boards myself. IP: Logged |
| Pierce Follower of Athlon |
posted October 25, 1999 21:14
Oops... never mind that reply above.  Had RC5 on my mind and not Seti. Quite frankly I don't know which would be better as far as Seti goes. Sorry IP: Logged |
| Pieter Follower of Athlon |
posted October 26, 1999 12:46
i think K6-III are faster at seti. ------------------ Pieter :*) IP: Logged |
| daviddth Follower of Athlon |
posted October 26, 1999 03:04
The K6-III will just beat a K6-2, but it's close. Really the L2 cache is too small to make a lot of difference in Seti as the data is just too big to fit. The K6-2+ (I think that's the name) should be interesting with the different size l2 cache - if one is 512k in size, S@h will FLY! Dave IP: Logged |
| Akma Follower of Athlon |
posted October 26, 1999 04:05
Some theoretic discussion: My machine crunches some 22 hours on a K6-III 400 (4x100) under Win98. My K6-2 350 (3.5x100) took some 28 hours to finish the unit. Which suggests that on my machine a K6-2 500 (5x100) would take 19.5 hours. A K6-III is about 12% faster than a similarly clocked K6-2. Thus a K6-2 475 would probably be a bit faster on my machine than a K6-III 400 (somewhat equivalent to a K6-2 450). But you should notice that the nominal FSB speed for the K6-2 475 is 95 MHz. Linux time for the K6-2 350 was about 18 hours. If you are to do any RC5, then only the MHz matter not the K6-X model. IP: Logged |
| Pieter Follower of Athlon |
posted October 26, 1999 12:01
My K6-III 400 allways did units between 16 and 18 hours. Regards, Pieter IP: Logged |
| RAVE Follower of Athlon |
posted October 26, 1999 12:27
Here's a good comparison for you. I had a K6-2 475 o/c 504 (4.5x112), and a WU would take between 20-22 hours. I recently installed a K6-3 450 (same system) and now the WU takes between 16-18 hours. Ray IP: Logged |
| Sqiz Follower of Athlon |
posted October 26, 1999 16:25
I'm using an AMD K6-2 3D!Now 475 o/c to 504MHz with 64MB of PC100 o/c to 112 and I never take longer than 15.5 hours !!! Some WU's with no guassian's finish in as little as 13 - 13.5 hours. My advise is stop focusing on the CPU and concentrate on the memory speed (CAS = 2, edge rather than level) and a large L2 cache on the mbrd. Once you get it stable (and I had to remove my 16MB AGP card and use a 4MB PCI instead), test it thoroughly. Lastly remove the side of the PC case and stand next to a 42W tower fan for maximum cooling !!! Sqiz. http://www.lakeside.force9.co.uk/Seti/setiteam.html PS. Windows98 running the NT client and using SetiMULT for 24/7 with or without the server. [This message has been edited by Sqiz (edited October 26, 1999).] IP: Logged |
| CASC member Follower of Athlon |
posted October 26, 1999 19:20
My K6-2 350 does a unit in about 18.5 to 20 hrs avg. 128mb ram set at 8ns = 125mhz on a Asus P5A and Running W98. I only run SETI when i'm not using the computer. I have also enabled VCache in the system.ini set at Chunksize=512 MinFileCache=8192 MaxFileCache=16384 I'm not sure why but maybe its the board as from what i read my 350 seems a bit faster than the same chip on other boards. any ideas ? John IP: Logged |
| RAVE Follower of Athlon |
posted October 27, 1999 12:25
I think the point of this thread was missed by some people. Who cares if your 350 does it in 5 hours. The point is I substituted a K6-2 475 (o/c 504) with a K6-3 450 in the exact same system, and I gained 4 hours on WU process times which proves that the K6-3 is better at doing WUs than the K6-2. Painfull that is... Ray IP: Logged |
| fredro Follower of Athlon |
posted October 27, 1999 15:28
i think that what others are saying is, you can get the faster k6-3, but if its not configured properly, its no faster than the k6-2. i am guilty of that. i have 2 identicle system, k6-2 450mhz, fic 503+ mobo`s, and one does a wu in 15 and a half to 16 hours, the other does it in 18 to 20 hours, i havent taken the time to configure the other one, ive been busy building and fixing computers for freinds. (best excuse i can come up with)
IP: Logged |
| All times are ET (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All submissions are copyrighted by their respective authors and are not for re-use in any form without their explicit written consent.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.37
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998 - 1999.