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

winbenchchart.gif (29126 bytes)


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

fsakenchart.gif (28434 bytes)

 

MII Conclusions


Last Updated on 10/07/98
By Lyle Boomer


© 1998/1999/2000
MediaTek All Rights Reserved