I am arrogant for pointing out you do not know what you are talking about and explaining why? Or are you an idiot for using terms you do not know, and then directing some vague insult based on no information at me? Stick to what you know, and stop trying to sound like you know more than you do, and maybe it will not be necessary for someone to spend the time to correct you.
Jim, I have no idea what I am doing that is making it impossible for me to get across one simple point. There is not 600 MHz K6-III, so no motherboards have a 6x multiplier. Nor would there be, because AMD made it completely unnecessary. What possible reason would a motherboard maker have to create a 6x multiplier when AMD remapped 2x to 6x (since one would never run the processor at 2x, it was a painless and logical choice), and AMD never released a 600 MHz chip!!!! Good grief, this is not rocket science here, and for some reason we are just not communicating on a very simple point.
Your remarks about Intel are completely incorrect, and I wish you would stop putting me in a situation where I have to come off as insulting. For one, my friend, Intel makes motherboards, and lots of them. Saying Intel and referring to motherboard makers as "they" is not accurate. Now, why would they move from Socket 7 to Socket 8 and Slot 1? Well, simple, the K6. The K6 was good enough to compete with the Pentium, and not good enough to compete with the P6 core (Pentium Pro and Pentium II in this case). So, naturally Intel made the move to the P6, just like they did before that with the 486 when AMD cloned the 386, and the Pentium when AMD cloned the 486. Remember, Intel makes the chipsets, and stopped at the 430 TX for the Socket 7. This alone handicapped AMD since VIA was remarkably poor at making chipsets (some think they still are, but in my opinion they have improved) and the move to Super 7 was without Intel's chipsets. Consequently, we have garbage like the MVP3. It had nothing to do with motherboard makers, and if it did, Intel would fire their own employees. It is just what Intel does when their competition catches up with their old technology, which is how things used to be.
With respect to the 400 ATZ and 450 ACZ, you are beating an old horse and you refuse to listen. Your premise is that all 450 ACZs are exactly like yours, and all 400 ATZs are exactly like mine. Considering the small sample set, I think that is quite a leap. My contention is that getting 50 MHz rating for .4 volts is so easy, they would generally be from the part of the wafer considered the worst. Naturally, there will be great ones, and some lots will be particularly good, but in general the 400 ATZ should exhibit better characteristics. Anyone that overclocks will tell you that .4 volts for 50 MHz is a lousy trade. You got lucky, be happy with it. If you still want to believe the 450 ACZ are miraculously the best, go right ahead. At this point the whole conversation bores me and is played out.
With regards to a shrink, I think we need to clear up a few things. There is nothing about a K6 that limits it to say 750 MHz. You could say there is a design limitation that reduces it to 750 MHz at a certain lithography. When you shrink a processor, you are shrinking the line width, meaning a more refined lithography. You have some problems, like greater leakage which can reduce clock speeds (they were a major issue moving to 90nm), but at .18 they were minor. When you shrink the lithography, and processor, everything becomes closer, and you should be able to operate at faster clock speeds. If your design remained exactly the same, at a finer lithography, discounting problems like leakage, you would run faster with no changes. Everything is closer and smaller. Now, the initial shrink is never as good as subsequent ones, where you can find the limiting areas, and there is always at least one, and address them. So, yes, you do get better as you work with it, but even without these changes, a processor should run faster. For the K6, they did. Stretching the K6-2 to 550 MHz was miraculous, AMD did an incredible job manufacturing it at those speeds considering the design. On .18 it was easy. My point is while Intel and the K7 almost double clock speeds, AMD simply enjoyed better yields. Of course, they could overclock better, and certainly could have reached 600 MHz if they really wanted to, it still represents a terrible shrink vis-a-vis the Athlon and Pentium II/III.
I can only speculate why AMD did not make the K6-III at 600 MHz. While I was in contact with AMD quite a bit at that time, it was all about the Athlon. The K6-III was not even considered for business machines, because the chipset support was so poor. AMD made their own chipset for the K7 family, and it was considered much more solid. So, I am guessing that while there is no technical reason the K6 could not have been made at 600 MHz, there was probably a marketing issue. It would probably been confusing to customers, and it may not even have been something anyone wanted (meaning in numbers) since increased clock speed meant shorter battery lifespan. Since these were mobile processors, performance was generally not as important as battery life. So, there may not have been a market for it for laptops. Since the chips were not sold for the desktop, power was always a major factor in the attractiveness of the processors.
I guess one could ask why they never moved the .18 K6s to the desktop. I think that would be easy to answer with greater accuracy. It would confuse customers, and they probably wanted to get away from the platform since it was so weak. The chipsets for the Athlon were so much more stable, and back then being known for reliability was very important for AMD since they were not as well known as they are now. So, I think they were happy to see the Super 7 platform fade into obsolescence.
Keep in mind, none of this came from my talks with AMD. It is pure speculation, I do not know anything that you do not.
Oh, on a different note, I found a really interesting store today! They still have Pentium Pro 200's, with 1MB cache!!!!!!! Brand new. They have all sorts of cheap/old processors, all new. K6s as well. I never thought I would see a Pentium Pro 200 1MB processor new in my life. These bad boys went for over $2000, and are extremely rare. If anyone is interested in the store's URL, let me know and I will post it. I have to find my wallet and order the processors before I do though
. I still can not believe I found these things. I have been looking for them for a long time. Now to find some motherboards