Some information about the AMD K6, and K6 3D, the only *true* x86 processors.
Important AMD links
Upcoming AMD processors, and AMD's strategy
Why you should hate Intel, and love AMD (like me!) :)
Cyrix processors are decent, but they don't cut it
AMD's past, and why they lost ground; why you should support them
AMD K6 and AMD K6 3D benchmarks
Some information about the AMD K6
Last year, a few weeks before AMD released their new K6 processor starting off
at speeds of 166MHz, 200MHz, and 233MHz, everyone was looking at this new and
powerful competitor to Intel. The spirits at AMD were so high, nothing
could break them. And then the day came. The K6 was sent to market, and AMD
was proudly showing a K6 system running at 266MHz. At this time, Intel's
flagship processors were the Pentium MMX 200MHz, and the Pentium Pro 200.
After it was benchmarked, people quickly realized that in some aspects, the
AMD K6 166MHz was faster than a Pentium MMX 200, and an AMD K6 200MHz was certainitly faster than a Pentium MMX 200. A K6 233MHz was performing at the 32-bit speed of a Pentium Pro 200, which is quite impressive considering the Pentium Pro 200 has an internal L2 cache at 200MHz, while the AMD K6 is using slow 66MHz cache attached to the board. To put the pressure on Intel even more, AMD priced their K6 far below Intel's prices. To this day, the only aspect that the
Pentium MMX 233 is faster than a K6 233 is in the FPU (Floating Point Unit), and according to some benchmarks, the K6 FPU is faster or on par with the Pentium MMX's 233. This is because despite all the optimizations on this wonderful chip, they left out a pipelined FPU. Had they included a pipelined FPU, the K6 233 would be better than a Pentium MMX 233 in all aspects. Currently, an AMD K6 233 can give a Pentium II 233 a good run for the money running under business applications and image processing. Also, with a 3D card on it's side, the K6 can outperform a Pentium II in 3D operations and games. The K6 300 is starting to look very powerful against a Pentium II 300, considering that the Pentium II 300 has 150MHz cache whereas the K6 has 66MHz cache.
Currently, the 166MHz, 200MHz, and 233MHz are readily available and are
produced in a 0.35 micron process. Currently, AMD has upgraded most of their fabrication
plants to 0.25 micron, which will reduce chip size, causing a decrease in
heat dissipation, and reduce power intake while (according to the laws of
physics; I won't get into this deeply, but the electrons would have less
distance to travel) making the processor run faster at the same time.
Available in quantity is the AMD K6 266MHz, and the AMD K6 300MHz, which is produced in Fab 25 on a 0.25 micron process. IBM sells machines with the K6 300, and it is also available through OEM's and retail boxes.
No matter how high Intel can get their Pentium II clock speeds to go, the
K6 will always have a more sophisticated microarchitecture. With 8.8 million
transistors, it is the most complicated x86 processor ever made. Some of its
main speed advantages are having a 6 Issue RISC (RISC86) superscalar microarchitecture,
containing 7 parallel execution units, multiple sophisticated x86 to RISC86
decoders, an advanced two-level branch prediction, superscalar and out-of-order
execution, register renaming, data forwarding, and it's capable of issuing up
to 6 RISC86 instructions per clock. It has a large 64KB L1 cache,
which is split into a 32KB instruction cache with additional predecode cache,
32KB writeback dual-ported data cache, with MESI protocol support.
It has a high performance IEEE 754-compatible Floating Point Unit and
is capable of processing MMX instructions. It also has the industry-standard
SMM (System Managment Mode). And above all this, it maintains complete
x86 software compatibility. The K6 has the industry's most advanced
branch prediction logic by using a 8192 entry branch history table (versus
512 in the Pentium II), a branch target cache, and a return address stack which
produces a 95% prediction rate (versus 90% in the Pentium II). Above all this,
it is Socket 7 compatible, meaning that Pentium MMX users DO NOT
have to buy a crummy "Slot 1" board for their new Pentium II (did I mention
it's a waste of money?), but rather they can simply swap CPU's and get industry-leading
performance.
After doing an interesting study on how performance increases in the K6 based on changes
in the CPU core frequency and the cache frequency, I have come up with the conclusion that:
If a K6, like a Pentium II, had it's L2 cache running at half the speed of the CPU core,
that it can beat a Pentium II in business apps. under Win95 AND WinNT 4.0! If you
don't believe me, the following benchmarks are estimated performances of the K6 running
with this high speed L2 cache:
Note that in xxx/yyy, xxx is the CPU core in MHz, and yyy is the cache speed in MHz. Both of these estimated performances (although proven quite true
by benchmarks of a K6/300 running at a 100MHz bus speed) were running on a 66MHz bus. The above results are the estimates of averages of 25 scores
for both the K6 and Pentium II. Eat that, Intel!
The AMD K6 3D
****Release date of May 15-23**** THIS WILL BE ONE SCREAMER CPU!!
Performance information I have heard about the AMD K6 3D in it's pre-release form:
An AMD K6 3D 300MHz running DirectX 6.0 (which enables AMD-3D technology) is about 30% faster than a Pentium II 300MHz in 3D operations.
The AMD K6 3D performs at about the same integer performance
of a Pentium II when running at similar clock speeds.
The AMD K6 3D will be the first Socket 7 (Super 7) CPU to have
a 100MHz frontside bus, enabling up to 800MB/sec transfers.
Multimedia enhancement! AMD-3D technology -- It will accelerate 3D graphics (duh), and multimedia applications (AMD's MMX instruction set); the 3D instructions
will also help the FPU and also make multiple FPU operations per clock available. Also expect it to
have a superscalar MMX execution unit for current MMX applications.
Important AMD links
AMD's site
More to come!
Upcoming AMD processors, and AMD's strategy
The AMD K6+ 3D
This will give Intel some awesome competition. Whereas the K6 3D simply beats the Pentium II
in most categories, this CPU will destroy the Pentium II in everything. One major performance
increase to this CPU is the 256KB embedded L2 cache; yes I said embedded, not seperate from the
main CPU silicon, but still in the main enclosure (not like the Pentium Pro which has two pieces of silicon). Also unlike the Pentium Pro, the motherboards that run this CPU will also have a large L3 cache. It is
supposed to start at 350MHz, then move to 400MHz (according to the roadmap; for the K6 3D AMD's
roadmap stated they will start with only a 300MHz model, but rumors are going around that they'll start
with a 300 and 350MHz version, yet the 350MHz version wasn't supposed to be available until later.)
Some major improvments are: improved write buffering, pipelining, and combining and a large L2 TLB.
Yet, with all these improvments, it will contain 21.3 million transistors on a die of 135 square mm. The
current 0.35 micron K6 has 8.8 million transistors with a 168 square mm die!
The AMD K7
When the AMD K7 hits, AMD will be known as a world leader in the x86 market. These are not rumors,
but, it is information I gathered from a respectable source. This CPU will use a Slot-A cartridge that will
look like Intel's Slot 1, but is way too advanced to ever work in Slot 1! It will use the bus protocol of the
Alpha 21264, which will give it an edge. But the main performance increases, this CPU will
have speeds above 1GHz (1000MHz!), up to a 333MHz bus speed! This CPU (according to
some sources) is in a very early beta testing, and it is running at 533MHz.
The AMD K8
Hang on to your pants Intel, this CPU may grab a huge part of the market! Although AMD has not
released any information about this CPU, AMD's roadmap clearly demonstrates it having a CPU that
competes with every Intel CPU. That is, except for Intel's "big and bad" IA-64 Merced. Somehow, I don't
think AMD would come all this way without dueling it out to the very end. Therefore, I think the K8
will be AMD's true 64-bit CPU! Sure, you don't have to believe me on this one because of the
lack of evidence, but compare AMD's and Intel's roadmaps... you'll see.......
AMD's strategy, and why I don't like Intel!
Although, IMHO, I would like to see Intel pushed off the x86 market, but that's not AMD's goal. They're
not out for blood, they just want people to have a choice without having to pay over-inflated prices for
one brand of CPU. However, since the days of the Pentium, AMD has lost a lot of ground, because
Intel put a lot of patents that disabled them from reverse-engineering their Pentium CPU. The answer:
The AMD K5. It was a big flop, it was released almost a year later than scheduled, and ran at the same
speed of a Pentium CPU that it's PR rating was at (not faster than Intel designs). But, since the K6, AMD
is coming back strong as ever by cutting their prices way under Intel's and forcing technology to advance,
since Intel doesn't want their chips to be considered old technology. Well guess what? Had it not been for
the K6, 1) a Pentium II 400 wouldn't have been available until early 1999, and they are circulating in the
market now; 2) A Pentium II 300 CPU would've still been priced at $1,300 for the single CPU; and 3)
There wouldn't have been any wonderful AMD CPU's that there are today. And yes, #2 is very true.
If you look at the Pentium Pro, until recently, it's price has almost never fallen any since the 3(?) years
it's been around. Why? Simple; there was no competing chips in that class, so Intel could simply
monopolize it and set the prices. Hence, had AMD not thrown their K6 against a Pentium II, everyone
would've been paying terrible prices.
Cyrix processors are decent, but they don't cut it
You can argue with me all day on why Cyrix is better than AMD, you seen a 6x86MX performing like
a Pentium II, yaddha yaddha, but the facts are clear: Cyrix processors have a slow FPU, weak MMX,
terrible 3D and 32-bit performance. As a matter of fact, a 6x86MX "PR233"'s 32-bit performance
is about equivalent to an AMD K6 166's. Sure, you can argue that this is because the Cyrix chip isn't
running at 233MHz, but it runs slower and performs better at lower clock speeds. My reasoning on this:
(feel free to argue.. :-) ) the Cyrix chip design does not have a very good physcial build to it. Take an
Alpha for example; they're about the same size as x86 CPU's, yet they run at 533MHz. Why? Because
their silicon is well manufactured and can withstand high frequencies without pumping out too much
heat. I'm not sure if that's right or not, but it is my opinion! Also, the results you may have seen of
a Cyrix 6x86MX being faster than a Pentium II: don't listen to it. It's only one benchmark: Winstone 97
under Win95. That would be like taking the one strong point of the K6, and running around saying that
it's better than every other chip simply because it runs faster in this one category. Well, I think I've said
enough here! :-)
AMD's past, and why they lost ground
Had AMD had a design ready when Intel released their Pentium, their market share
wouldn't have dropped to 10%. In the days of the 286, 386, and 486, AMD, Cyrix, and other "clones"
reverse-engineered the Intel chips. In a sense, it was Intel's design (with maybe a few improvments),
but it was reverse-engineered so it did not violate patents. However, when the Pentium was released,
Intel set down some new patents so AMD and others couldn't do the same thing they did in the old
days. AMD was completely unprepared for this, and they started losing market share. However, they
did release a 5x86 (so did Cyrix), which was a slightly modified 486 core. In the older days, they were so desperate for a new chip design that part of their roadmap included taking a 5x86 to 166MHz on a
33MHz bus! Except it would only perform like a Pentium 100! Cyrix, however, was looking at the
Pentium Pro, and most of their 6x86 design is similar to a Pentium Pro. AMD was stumbling, but
they looked at their K5 as a hope to get back into the market. The K5 was more like a doomsday
device for AMD. One of the main rumors (that still exists to this day) is that the K5 is not completely
compatible with x86 software. Well, this is a major lie considering it was XXCAL certified, and the only
problems with it are when the software specifically requests a Pentium. I say that the K5 was a doomsday
device because it was shipped almost a year late from the expected date, and when it was shipped, it was
available as a PR-90 device (correct me if I'm wrong about that.) At the time, Intel had a Pentium 166 and
a Pentium Pro 200 as it's flagships, and AMD stood no chance. However, AMD was looking into the former
company known as NexGen. Their 586 CPU's (already running at 133MHz -- right when Intel had the
Pentium 133) could run faster than Intel CPU's at the same clock speed. These CPU's are more commonly
known as Nx586's, and those of you that have one are lucky. I would keep it as a collector's item (heh)!
But AMD bought them because of their upcoming Nx686 designs. After AMD purchased them, their design
teams went to work on the Nx686, taking it's performance to the maximum, adding MMX instructions (later
on, anyway) etc etc, and the AMD K6 was born. For a short while in April '97, the AMD K6 was called the
world's fastest x86 CPU! Hmmm I wonder if Intel can forsee their own death by setting down new patents
so no reverse engineering can occur? It seems to me that after that happened, AMD started to pull ahead
and stay very competitive....
You should support AMD because; as in the other section, I mentioned about prices and technology.
Without AMD to push Intel to undercut their prices and develop a better chip, the best technology
around would be a Pentium II 300 and the CPU alone would cost around $1,300! So if you want
lower prices, faster and newer technologies, buy AMD!
AMD K6 and AMD K6 3D benchmarks
AMD K6 versus Socket 7
Note that with these tests, all machines had the same configuration (except for the CPU) and higher numbers are better in all of these benchmarks.
Key: K6-xxx = AMD K6 at xxxMHz, P-xxxM = Pentium MMX xxxMHz, P-xxx = Pentium classic xxxMHz, C6-xxx = Cyrix 6x86 xxxMHz (no PR), K5-xxx = AMD K5 PRxxx
AMD K6 / K6 3D* versus Slot 1
* The K6 3D shown here is approximately from February sometime, and I'm sure it has gone through many revisions since then. The results for the K6 3D are far from final. I'm not sure if it would've made a difference, but also note that the K6 3D didn't have any 3D drivers for these tests.
All processors (except for the K6 266) were running on the 100MHz bus speed! (yes this means that there are Socket 7 boards out there that are stable enough at 100MHz. These should be the first examples of a true Super 7 board.) Once again, larger numbers are better. For the Business Winstone 97 tests, I couldn't find any results for the K6 3D or K6 266 (that were in similar test configurations). Expect more tests to follow (such as Winbench 98 tests and 3D tests.)
Do you believe in AMD's power as a dominant x86 force? Click here to tell me!
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free Home Page
Last Updated 30-Apr-98 ty140@hotmail.com