If anyone is interested, here's my two cents.
My notes with excerpts from here:
http://www.kingli.com/CPU-compare2.htm
Celeron 400 6 x 66mhz FSB - L1 16 and 16 / L2 128kb same speed as cpu clock, MMX, SSE
K6-2 "Chomper" 95, 100mhz FSB L1 32 and 32 / L2 max 2mb onboard mboard at FSB speed; some will run at as little as 66mhz (e.g. K6-2 400).
3D Now! - equivalent to MMX
"The K6-2 uses the Socket 7 bus--the interface Intel defined for its older Pentium processor--but runs the bus at 100 MHz instead of the 66 MHz Intel used.
Unlike Pentium II and Pentium III, the K6-2 does not have a separate interface for the L2 cache, so the cache speed is limited to 100 MHz and must share the bus bandwidth with memory and I/O traffic.
Thus as clock speeds increase, its performance does not rise as steeply as that of the Intel processors. The AMD K6-2/475, for example, scored only 3 percent above the K6-2/400 on our ZD Business Winstone 99 tests, whereas the Intel Celeron/466 beat the Celeron/400 by almost 7 percent. And tick for tick, the Celeron tended to outpace the K6-2 by 5 to 10 percent. The K6-2 processor also has slower floating-point and MMX units than Intel's chips, so its performance fell further behind on many 3-D, image processing, and multimedia applications."
K6-III "Sharptooth" 100mhz FSB L1 32 and 32 / L2 256kb same speed as cpu clock / L3 onboard mboard max 2mb at FSB speed
3D Now! - equivalent to MMX
"AMD's follow-up, the K6-III, debuted in early 1999. It added an on-chip, 256K L2 cache, providing a significant performance boost. For example, a 450-MHz K6-III was 21 percent faster than a 450-MHz K6-2 on ZD Business Winstone 99. And the K6-III/400 performed about 11 percent better on Business Winstone 99 than a Celeron/400."
....
Laptop/Notebook cpus - 2.0v, max 2.1v core voltage, lower than the 2.2v to 2.4v for K6-2, K6-III; run cooler.
K6-2+ "Chomper" Mobile 100mhz FSB L1 32and32 / L2 128kb same speed as cpu clock/L3 onboard mboard max 2mb at FSB speed
3D Now! Enhanced - equivalent to MMX AND SSE
K6-III+ "Sharptooth" Mobile? - same as K6-2+ except L2 256kb same speed as cpu clock
.....
The above ignores the overall effect of the K6-2 and K6-III being able to use a 95 or 100mhz FSB vs 66mhz for the early Celeron Socket 370 cpus. The K6-2's may not have been quite as good cpu's as the Celerons, but the whole system ran faster because of the 95 or 100mhz bus, 100mhz ram, resulting in better performance than you would expect percentage wise from the up to 1/3 increase in FSB speed.
....
In late 1999 I researched a lot of mboards.
I settled on a K6-III 450, on a Epox MVP3-G5 mboard with 2mb of L2 cache onboard (L3 to the K6-III), which supports caching up to 512mb of ram.
My mboard and cpu cost at least $100 less than a Celeron 450 and mboard at the time, and it had UDMA66 support - most of the socket 370 mboards had UDMA33, and very few mboards could support caching up to 512mb of ram (most cached max half that).
The Mobile K6-2+ and K6-III+ were not available then.
...
I recently got a K6-2 550 and a K6-2+ 550.
On the same mboard.....
Sysoft Sandra gives the K6-III 450 a rating of PR541 vs PR550 for the K6-2 550, PR661 for the K6-2+ 550, and PR721 for the K6-2+ 550 at 600mhz (100mhz X2=X6)
......
***********************************************************************
