Its a VERY old AMD chip (slow, and didn't compete with Intel well at all). I doubt there is anything you can do to a machine with one of those in, to make it better as it will basically be a dead-end.
Use the program mmonnin attached to check the chip (if the machine actually works) for the speed. It will be somewhere between 200 and 550mhz.
The speed should actually be written on it though (or engraved) either way, it should be readable if you clean it (e.g. below)
Its a VERY old AMD chip (slow, and didn't compete with Intel well at all). I doubt there is anything you can do to a machine with one of those in, to make it better as it will basically be a dead-end.
not entirely true. remember the AMD K6-2 patch for Win 95, the patch was actually a wait state becasue the K6-2 was too fast at integer calculations for Win95, thus the OS would crash. If memory serves me correctly, the K6-2 held a small advantage in office and productivity programs, but nothing else.
By the way, to the thread starter. Theres no such thing as an AMD Athlon K6-2. It either an Athlon OR a K6-2. I think all of us Know what you mean, i just wanted to clarify that for ya.
not entirely true. remember the AMD K6-2 patch for Win 95, the patch was actually a wait state becasue the K6-2 was too fast at integer calculations for Win95, thus the OS would crash. If memory serves me correctly, the K6-2 held a small advantage in office and productivity programs, but nothing else.
All I remember was that my mates Celeron 333mhz Walked all over my K6-2 366mhz, that and everyone saying they sucked (Win98)
By the way, to the thread starter. Theres no such thing as an AMD Athlon K6-2. It either an Athlon OR a K6-2. I think all of us Know what you mean, i just wanted to clarify that for ya.
How did I miss that, I mean me of all people: Mr Pedantic :rolleyes2
0
Straight_ManGeeky, in my own wayNaples, FLIcrontian
edited January 2004
One thing-- the K6-3 series was decent, the K6-2 had broken 3D graphics except for the K6-2\500, 550, and the short lived 533 (some 500's would run at 533 MHz happily). The K6-3 series had a graphics fix in it, and the K6-3\450 ran rings around my K6-2\500 CPU. They needed better heat sinking and fans usually, than what was supplied, the decent ones of the K6-2 series.
Your friend's Celeron had either a retired Pentium Pro or a Pentium II core with smaller cache, probably. Have seen both variants. AND better 3D, as AMD was just learning to emulate 3D at that time (when the pre 475 K6-2's were designed).
Are you talking about Video Write Caching that caused most games to lock up or not work? As that was fixed by (a lot) later BIOS fixes, and/or again, a lot later Windows updates (to manualy force it on).
0
Straight_ManGeeky, in my own wayNaples, FLIcrontian
Comments
Use the program mmonnin attached to check the chip (if the machine actually works) for the speed. It will be somewhere between 200 and 550mhz.
The speed should actually be written on it though (or engraved) either way, it should be readable if you clean it (e.g. below)
not entirely true. remember the AMD K6-2 patch for Win 95, the patch was actually a wait state becasue the K6-2 was too fast at integer calculations for Win95, thus the OS would crash. If memory serves me correctly, the K6-2 held a small advantage in office and productivity programs, but nothing else.
By the way, to the thread starter. Theres no such thing as an AMD Athlon K6-2. It either an Athlon OR a K6-2. I think all of us Know what you mean, i just wanted to clarify that for ya.
All I remember was that my mates Celeron 333mhz Walked all over my K6-2 366mhz, that and everyone saying they sucked (Win98)
How did I miss that, I mean me of all people: Mr Pedantic :rolleyes2
Your friend's Celeron had either a retired Pentium Pro or a Pentium II core with smaller cache, probably. Have seen both variants. AND better 3D, as AMD was just learning to emulate 3D at that time (when the pre 475 K6-2's were designed).
John.
John.