Kryotech Cool K6-3 500

Here's the confusing part, why would the K6-3 at 500MHz be slower than AnandTech's K6-3 at 400MHz?  The performance of AnandTech's FIC PA-2013 test bed with 2MB L3 cache under NT seems to be superior, as a result of the larger L3 cache (4x as large as that of the Kryotech system) and therefore boasts higher Windows NT benchmarks due to NT's incredible dependency on cache size/speed.  Are you getting your money's worth with the Kryotech Cool K6-3?  When a similarly configured, home built, air-cooled K6-3 system can produce faster benchmarks at a lower cost, then your $1250 investment begins to grow a bit discouraging. 

There is a point of justification however, the 2MB FIC PA-2013 board isn't available to the public in mass quantities, so the K6-3 500 still offers a small performance increase under Windows NT in comparison to a 450MHz K6-3 system with 1MB of L3 cache.  The bottom line?   In order for the Cool K6-3 to be a competitive product, the 500MHz barrier needs to be shattered...and quickly.  The market won't wait for another 6 weeks for the next revision to come out, by that time we'll be in the same situation once again, a fast system, but too little too late.