Intel Corporation (INTC) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)

INTC 39.50

-3.1%

Dec 11 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (163203)	3/29/2002 5:40:20 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) of 186894

bmw re: Not true. For the Pentium 4, 2.2GHz is always faster than 1.9GHz, which is always faster than 1.6GHz.....such as whether 1.5GHz for Pentium 4 is faster than 1.4GHz from Pentium III-S. It is not so MW did not have any performance inhancements over prior variation? :-)) and as you can see I was talking only about p4s re: The example I used was when AMD saw fit to name a 1.3GHz Athlon 4 into a 1500+, even though they already used a 1500+ to name their 1.33GHz Athlon XP with a faster front side bus. In my prior argument I compared desktop vs desktop. And while it would be nice to measure all of the platforms applications on the same basis, amd has to fit into industry standards that are defined by Intel's MHz re: most people should agree that QS is no more beneficial in megahertz in describing performance. I guess those who place intel sales above customer needs should but in the long run that backfires. It would be wise for intel and amd to sponsor 3rd party organization that would put labeling standards in place. Somehow I think that amd would have a problem with that but you would find it really hard to convince Intel -Albert

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next