Great build. Well balanced specs.

Plays games good too.

I feel the Need for Speed.

AMD K6-III+ was nowhere to be found for normal consumers. I used to have K6-2 500@550 with Voodoo3 2000 in 1999 to 2001. Wasn't impressed but it was better then P-MMX 166@250 (on the same SS7 board). Even replaced it with P-II 350@475 a bit later. But finally bought an Athlon XP 1800+ and GF3 Ti200 in 2002.

the K6 + variants were meant for laptops if memory serves me correctly and could be found through vendors like Tiger Direct, which is where I think I got my III+ from. I'm sure where you live affected availability, but they were great CPU's for the money. However they have known issues using too much RAM due to caching issues, Phil did an excellent video on this. https://www.philscomputerlab.com/amd-k6-2-vs- … -vs-k6-iii.html

Yeah, I would also have to say that the K6-3/3+ was not a budget CPU either. For the short time it was available, it was hardly cost competitive given the poorer performance compared to the P3 and other available options. More people used K6-2 or celery if they cared about cost. The K6-3 cost more than those so didn't really fit in the market and didn't last very long, quickly replaced by Athlon. But I did use one back in the day too. For super socket 7, it is nice.

I bought a Slightly used Toshiba laptop at a flea market for $5. It had an AMD K6-2@500mhz. in it too.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2024-05-16, 15:14:

AMD K6-III+ @ 500mhz

By the time this cpu was available both Win95 and 98 were history.

K6-2 with 500 MHz and 128 MB RAM it was.
You could not put more RAM into the machine without having an uncached area.
(Or you had a mainboard with 1 meg or 2 meg L2 but that would not be "budget" anymore)

Yeah, 128mb or 256mb of PC-133 SDRAM is All you need for Best Performance.
But all I had was a 512mb stick.
This computer performs good and is Very Stable and Reliable.
Would have liked to Have it Back in Win-95 Era.

the3dfxdude wrote on 2024-05-16, 17:41:

Yeah, I would also have to say that the K6-3/3+ was not a budget CPU either. For the short time it was available, it was hardly cost competitive given the poorer performance compared to the P3 and other available options. More people used K6-2 or celery if they cared about cost. The K6-3 cost more than those so didn't really fit in the market and didn't last very long, quickly replaced by Athlon. But I did use one back in the day too. For super socket 7, it is nice.

Yeah, the K6-III+ didn't release until mid-2000. By the time you get to that era, an Athlon or Duron would be more appropriate for budget-oriented gaming rigs.

For mid-1998 something like a K6-2 300 or Celeron 300A would be period correct. It would match the release timing of the Voodoo Banshee (also mid-1998).

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2024-05-22, 16:42:

This computer performs good and is Very Stable and Reliable.
Would have liked to Have it Back in Win-95 Era.

You'd need a time machine to make that happen since it uses a processor from the year 2000. 😉

Period correct for a budget gaming rig for the Windows 95 era (1996 to mid-1998) would have been a Pentium or Pentium MMX.

By the time Windows 98 rolled around, you're into the Celeron 300A or an AMD K6-2 for a budget gaming rig for that period. From what I recall, the Celeron 300A was the top-runner when it come to price/performance for 1998.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-05-22, 17:37:

You'd need a time machine to make that happen since it uses a processor from the year 2000. ;) […]
Show full quote

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2024-05-22, 16:42:

This computer performs good and is Very Stable and Reliable.
Would have liked to Have it Back in Win-95 Era.

You'd need a time machine to make that happen since it uses a processor from the year 2000. 😉

Period correct for a budget gaming rig for the Windows 95 era (1996 to mid-1998) would have been a Pentium or Pentium MMX.

By the time Windows 98 rolled around, you're into the Celeron 300A or an AMD K6-2 for a budget gaming rig for that period. From what I recall, the Celeron 300A was the top-runner when it come to price/performance for 1998.

Okay, I am pretty sure I was using an AMD K6 CPU before Win98.
Or Maybe it was a Celeron ?

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2024-05-22, 17:48:

Okay, I am pretty sure I was using an AMD K6 CPU before Win98.
Or Maybe it was a Celeron ?

It might have been an original K6 since those came out in early 1997. Though at the time, the Pentium and Pentium MMX were more popular choices.

The K6-2 released late May in 1998, about a month before Windows 98 launched.

It seems like Microsoft only released the K6-2 speed patch for the OEM release of Win95 for this reason. Win98 was about to come out and they wanted users to use that instead. So the patch really was intended to keep their OEM customers happy while waiting for Win98.

So it was possible to buy one of these K6-2 chips prior to Win98, but it is a slim chance. It was around these days I got one too. I only used Win98 such a short time, it's hard to remember what we did. I know I played with the speed patch on a new install back then too.

Maybe I had the K6 during Win-98 and when Win-98SE came out I switched to the Pentium II@400mhz.
With a BX440 Motherboard.

I remember I only used the K6 for a short time because I was Running Win-NT for work so I used the Pentium CPU.
But the K6 with updates and Patches seems to run Stable and plays games okay.

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-05-22, 17:37:

From what I recall, the Celeron 300A was the top-runner when it come to price/performance for 1998.

Especially clocked at 450 😎 but was it out in 98? Remember buying one with an ABiT BH6 some time in 99 🤔 maybe I just wasn't a first mover 🤣

[Edit]: according to Wikipedia, the Mendocino core launched on August 24th 1998, so surely it was a fast beast in 98, then ..

H3nrik V! wrote on 2024-05-22, 21:06:

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-05-22, 17:37:

From what I recall, the Celeron 300A was the top-runner when it come to price/performance for 1998.

Especially clocked at 450 😎 but was it out in 98? Remember buying one with an ABiT BH6 some time in 99 🤔 maybe I just wasn't a first mover 🤣

I also had that Abit Bx440 Motherboard.
I remember I had a full size ATX motherboard for the K6

H3nrik V! wrote on 2024-05-22, 21:06:

Shponglefan wrote on 2024-05-22, 17:37:

From what I recall, the Celeron 300A was the top-runner when it come to price/performance for 1998.

Especially clocked at 450 😎 but was it out in 98? Remember buying one with an ABiT BH6 some time in 99 🤔 maybe I just wasn't a first mover 🤣

[Edit]: according to Wikipedia, the Mendocino core launched on August 24th 1998, so surely it was a fast beast in 98, then ..

Yup, launched in 1998. There were ads for systems with it in the Fall of 1998.

Though it's reputation for overclockability may have come a little later. For example, here is an article from Jan 2, 1999 that talks about its overclocking potential along with some benchmarks: The Celery Report: Overclocking the Celeron

edited:

Found an ever earlier article from Oct 1998 from Ars Technica on overclocking that CPU: Celeron Overclocking FAQ – Part I.

It looks like overclocking it was a thing back in 1998.

I remember I had Stability problems with the K6 back in the Day but I think it was my fault.
Maybe I was using the wrong RAM type or Jumper settings.
Or maybe it was the patches.

But anyways it runs pretty good now. I like this little guy.