Testing the M-II 333 |
Although the test
battery was not as thorough as the MII 300, I'm sure you will get the idea...
Testing Configuration |
|
| Mainboard | Chaintech 5AGM2 |
| L2 cache | 512k |
| Memory | PC100 (8ns) |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital Caviar 33100 UDMA |
| Graphics Card | Viper 330 4MB AGP (nVidia 128 drivers) |
| Graphics Accelerator | Diamond MonsterII 3D 8MB |
| Ziff Davis
Winstone 98 Business |
|
| Cyrix M-II 333 (83MHzx3.0) | 21.4 |
| AMD K6-2 333MHz (95MHzx3.5) | 22.4 |
| Intel P200MMx (100MHzx2.0) | 17.3 |
As you can see the M-ii 333 offers fine business performance as it should. It's Winbench CPUmark32 and FPU Winmark scores are much improved over the MII 300
Winbench 98 |
||
| PC100 8ns | ||
| CPUmark32 | FPU Winmark | |
| 66MHz @4.0 | 583 | 563 |
| 75MHz @3.5 | 620 | 563 |
| 83MHz @3.0 | 642 | 566 |
| 100MHz @2.5 | 682 | 567 |
Applications which require a strong FPU such as games like QuakeII can really struggle
with the Cyrix MII, as the scores below reflect. Even with the additional support
of VoodooČ based graphics accelerator, which relieves a lot of the floating point duty
from the processor, the framerate in QuakeII is somewhat lackluster.
Quake II (3Dfx OpenGL) |
||
| Demo 1 | Massive 1 | |
| 66MHz @4.0 | 26.9 | 20.5 |
| 75MHz @3.5 | 23.1 | 17.2 |
| 83MHz @3.0 | 27.4 | 17.7 |
| 100MHz @2.5 | 29.5 | 16.5 |
Games run under Direct 3D using DirectX6 didn't have nearly the the problems evident in OpenGL games but still though the scores are highly playable, they aren't anything to write home about...
ForsakenMark (Direct3D) |
|
| 66MHz @4.0 | 48.82 |
| 75MHz @3.5 | 48.88 |
| 83MHz @3.0 | 51.22 |
| 100MHz @2.5 | 53.23 |
MII Conclusions
Last Updated on 10/07/98
By Lyle Boomer