There is a difference between the CPU's produced by AMD and Cyrix (and IDT,
for that matter), from the CPU's they used to make.  In the 486 days, they
were really just making Intel clone/copies.  With the 5x86 and K-5, they
were trying something new, but not doing it as well as Intel.  With the K6-2
3D, and the MII (6x86mx), we have some new animals in the fold.  Intel
remains the top dog in the Floating Point Unit (FPU) arena.  However, the 3D
Now w/AMD may have closed that gap.  Compatablility issues are no longer a
major concern, and you are right, those were mainly third party problems.

From what I have seen regarding the Celeron by Intel, you would be better
off with any other chip (K-6, M II, or P II).

I am using a K6 233, and find it does everything I could want.  I have used
the P II 266 and 333 and didn't notice signifigant speed (just a feeling, no
benchmarks done).

Bottom line:  if you are a serious GAMER, or want to do AUTO CAD, or the
like, stick w/Intel.  They do it best.  If you have other interests, then I
would see who gives you more for your $.

Frank B Smith




>Just wondering what the state of affairs is re: Intel competitor's CPU
>chips and how good they are compared to the Intel originals.
>
>I remember when AMD and Cyrix first came out to challenge Intel's monopoly,
>there were many "reports" that claimed, while the copycats were good, they
>were not 100% compatible with the Intel versions they were
-clip-
>More specifically, to the present, are the non-Intel chips as good as the
>Intels? Do we simply pay more for the Intel name, or is there a
>feature-difference or worse, a quality difference that the average home
>user could discern?