🚀 go-pugleaf

I beg to differ.  I am fairly sure that the K5 is not 100% compatible
with the Pentium.  There are some instructions in the Pentium, that
are not in the K5.   That is why I went with the Pentium.  Everything
I have read, and have asked AMD about, is that the K5 is a souped up
486.  

			Duane

ykhan@achilles.net (Yousuf Khan) wrote:

>On 24 Nov 1996 13:08:28 GMT, zarlenga@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
>wrote:

>>Are there any functional differences at all between the AMD
>>K5 CPU and the Intel i586 ("Genuine Pentium") CPU?

>No, not really, basically all software will work on either chip.

>>Is the AMD K5 chip made under license agreement with Intel,
>>hence the functional equivalent of the i586?  And, if made
>>under license agreement, I presume the process and surface
>>masks are identical, yes?

>No, up until the AMD 486 lineup, AMD was making clones of Intel's products.
>But now AMD has its own unique design which shares nothing with Intel's
>equivalent products, the Pentium or PentiumPro. Mhz for Mhz, an AMD K5 is
>somewhere between a Pentium and PentiumPro for real performance. But the
>architecture is unique to AMD. The software can't tell the difference
>usually (even low-level software like operating systems), because software
>is too high-level in the CPU's functional layers these days. It used to be
>the software was the lowest level available, but nowadays the CPU's have
>various levels lower still.

>>Are there any reasons why the K5 might be an inferior CPU
>>when compared to a "Genuine Pentium," functionally?

>AMD is not making CPUs that are as fast as the Intels, MHz-wise. The
>highest speed K5 is equivalent to a Pentium 133 nowadays. AMD is behind in
>this field, but likely it'll be able to catch up in a few months.

>					Yousuf Khan
>--
>Yousuf J. Khan
>ykhan@achilles.net
>Ottawa, Ont, Canada
>Nation's capital