AMD’s K6-III ‘Sharptooth’ arrived this week in 1999 featuring integrated L2 cache to maul the Intel Pentium II — it also stood its ground against the Pentium III

Delidded K6-III
(Image credit: Fritzchens Fritz)

AMD launched its first processors with on-die L2 cache this week in 1999, heralding the beginning of the Super Socket 7 era. With its new K6-III CPUs, AMD presented a major architectural leap above the popular K6-2 line, and knocked the Intel Pentium II 450 off its fastest processor perch. Intel would quickly follow up with its first Pentium III Katmai CPUs, but the K6-III could still outclass its pricier foe in cache latency-sensitive apps.

The Sharptooth scene

The latest AMD K6-III featuring integrated cache debuted in 400 and 450 MHz versions on Feb 22, 1999. AMD marketed the chip as a ready response to Intel’s forthcoming Pentium III (Feb 26 launch). Contemporary assessments and benchmarks indicate that AMD’s maneuver was generally successful – upholding the firm's value-for-money lead until K7 Athlon series technology was able to reach the broader market.

AMD K6-III

(Image credit: AMD)

A significant modification introduced with the K6-III involved the integrated L2 cache, which took the place of the less efficient ‘backside’ L2 cache utilized by its immediate forerunner and competing Intel Pentium II/III processors.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
The main specifications for the AMD K6 III processors were the following:

Technology

K6 NextGen architecture

Instruction sets

x86, MMX, 3DNow!

Cores

1C / 1T

Node

0.25um

Clocks

400 and 450 MHz

Caches

64KB L1, 256KB L2 on-die

Super Socket 7 era

AMD’s accessible, affordable Socket 7 period concluded impressively with The Super Socket 7 mainboards. These offered features like a 100 MHz front side bus, AGP support to elevate them from their legacy roots, and more flexible voltage controls.

In 2026, good condition Super Socket 7 boards are prized by retro enthusiasts for their wide-ranging CPU support, spanning Intel Pentium P54 and P55C, AMD 5k86, AMD K5, AMD K6, AMD K6-2, and K6-III (and +) chips, as well as rarer X86 relics including the Cyrix MII, IDT WinChip 2, and Rise mP6. They furthermore provide outstanding DOS compatibility, AGP support for iconic GPUs like the Voodoo3, TNT2, and various others, plus versatility with RAM (EDO, SDRAMM) and storage controllers.

AMD’s follow-up to the K6-III, the Athlon K7, debuted at 500 MHz later that year. Nevertheless, the K6-III continued to be offered until 2003. That’s quite an overlap, but keeping the older chip/motherboards available for mainstream users, and the new Athlons and Socket A motherboards for high-end desktop and workstation users, helped smooth the transition for AMD.

Google Preferred Source

Follow 3DTested on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to obtain our newest reports, breakdowns, & appraisals via your feeds.

TOPICS
Mark Tyson
News Editor
  • wussupi83
    I'm pretty sure this is what the first PC my family went out and bought had in it. I can't remember which clock speed version it was. Back then games were more hit or miss with compatibility with your hardware and drivers so it couldn't run everything but when it all worked it was a beast.
    Reply
  • usertests
    I have one of the last APUs with 3DNow!
    Reply
  • democog
    Hmm looks like L1 and L2 cache sizes have not changed since that era, which looks kinda weird I may say:) There is only L3 being introduced in bigger sizes..
    Reply
  • abufrejoval
    I believe I pretty near had every leading edge CPU that would fit into socket 5 and 7, some with the adapter that allowed you to run socket 7 CPUs on a socket 5 mainboard. And since they came out with a new one every few months, that was quite a few. I can't really remember what I did with the older ones... Each upgrade was relatively cheap, but they accumulated.

    Just like I had every CPU that would fit into socket 3, including the overdrive variant (and an overdrive CPU to go with it): my first Intel was a 80286 overclocked to 8 MHz (1 MHz 6502 before that).

    On one hand they were super cool, because just swapping out the CPU gave you an extra boost. Had a K5, might have gone directly to a K6-II, but with nearly every speed rank, up to 550MHz. And that was a bit of a bummer, because switching to the K6-III meant you had to trade clocks for the on-chip L2 cache (only 450MHz on the 250nm process size), something Intel needed a "CPU slot" for. My final K6-III+ (back to 550MHz), became a bit unstable at the speed, it was finally time to change.

    The 32-bit wide RAM had limited bandwidth, Northbridge chips RAM capacity limitations, and on the I/O side there was an 8-MHz 16-bit ISA bus, that went with those mainboards... Eventually socket 7 just became too many bottlenecks, especially since I started to play with GUIs, graphics accelerators, and virtual machines on VMware (1.0, which used code morphing, since hardware support came later). I believe 64MB RAM capacity was a hard limit with all my socket X boards, enough to run NT 3.51 with a Linux VM or vice versa, but not for long.

    I sat out the whole slotted CPU era (where both Intel and AMD used CPU boards to fit SRAM caches), and then went to socket 754 and 939 very quickly to leave all those tiny bottlenecks behind. EISA, VESA local bus and AGP had been a real pain, micro channel obviously worse, PCI ok but PCIe finally so much better, even if RAM became a complete write-off far too frequently, considering the price.

    Since the Pentium Overdrive at 83MHz they all needed a fan (unlike all earlier CPUs from 6502 to 80486DX4), but those were still tiny, nothing you'd have to budget your power supply for, or select a chassis for aero dynamic qualities. In fact systems back then often had so many add-in cards and cables, they were an authentic jungle, but heat was rarely an issue... At least after those first-generation BiCMOS Pentiums at 800nm, which tended to unsolder themselves at 66MHz and 5 Volt power.

    Looking back it seems I was under the hood of my PCs pretty near every day, while today some systems may not be openend for months and then perhaps more to clean out dust than swap out parts. But I also had mostly one, perhaps two, not dozens of physical systems in the home-lab/family-home.
    Reply
  • razor512
    I have one of their ancient K6 II CPUs, I took a pic of it. While an extremely low 533MHz, it handled windows 98 pretty decently back then, though they really skimped on the cache back then.

    Https://i.imgur.com/PJRKIZm.jpeg
    Reply
  • vinay2070
    I wanted to upgrade my pentium 100 to a K6 2 3D now, but being a school kid and lack of funds, I had to hold on till Duron came out. Duron was a nice upgrade along with a color monitor:)
    Reply
  • Ogotai
    i still have a K6 2 and k6 3, and both work just fine still... Too bad i dont have room to keep them usable, currently sitting in the mobo box...
    Reply
  • thesyndrome
    Once upon a time a company could just decide they were going to clone a popular CPU that would work in the same socket, and they got away with a slap on the wrist and went on to become one of the biggest names in PC hardware.

    Now we are stuck in monopolies of what might as well be the hardware equivalent of a "two-party system", with trademark and copyright rules so strict that if anyone even ATTEMPTED the same in the modern age, they would be demonised by the industry and financially ruined by legal fees.
    Reply
  • abufrejoval
    razor512 said:
    I have one of their ancient K6 II CPUs, I took a pic of it. While an extremely low 533MHz, it handled windows 98 pretty decently back then, though they really skimped on the cache back then.

    Https://i.imgur.com/PJRKIZm.jpeg
    533MHz isn't slow, it quite near top clock for the chip (550MHz). And please remember that the 32-bit x86 era started at 16 MHz on an 80386 in 1985, already enough to punch out quite a few multi-user VAXes.

    With quite a few IPC and ISA enhancements and caches to take advantage of these, after little more than a decade it was probably 100x faster than the initial class-defining CPU on anything intenger and logic.

    Add floating point, especially the AMD vector variant instead of the obsolete 8-bit "optimized" 287 stack ops from Intel, and you can add two extra orders of magnitude!

    On single threaded integer code things might have improved only 20x nearly 30 years later. Pumping out 512 bit vector results on 192 cores at every clock cycle at 10x clock, obviously yields a bit more HPC, but does little for Word on Windows 95.

    And it was the on-die L2 cache the K6-3 added only a year later, much like the V-cache more recently, which helpled with many, but not all workloads.

    Calling it "skimping" is had to swallow: those were made in 250nm, not 2.5nm and that's 100X on both the X and the Y axis for a factor of 1:10,000 in density or simply available transistors: please, show some respect!
    Reply
  • abufrejoval
    democog said:
    Hmm looks like L1 and L2 cache sizes have not changed since that era, which looks kinda weird I may say:) There is only L3 being introduced in bigger sizes..
    Printed on paper, the CPU design literature on that topic might easily balance a sky scraper. It's only weird, until you've started reading, but the simple truth is: cache costs more than just transistors for the data, it needs to be found, which requires searching and management, which requires time, not just extra transistors for that logic. The bigger the cache, the higher the processing overhead, and no, that's not just linear, that's the sky-scraper part, trying to fight the diminishing returns.

    Have a go, find the easy video lectures, lean back and enjoy the hard work which made modern performance levels possible. In those "CPU wars", far fewer people ever died.
    Reply