<Anyway, I just read the K7 review by Tom Pabst. Why is that guy so pro AMD. I don't know enough about him yet. I read his bio (a while ago)and that didn't tell me much from what I remember. He's really going out on a limb with some incredible assumptions isn't he?>
Tom is up and down with regard to his views on Intel. Several months before the Klamath release, a.k.a. Pentium II, Tom posted a scathing preview of the new processor, criticizing it for it's new and proprietary Slot 1 design. In that same article, he said,
AMD's K6 will be a screamer CPU. This CPU - believe it or not - will still fit into a Socket 7!!! The performance of the K6 is higher than the performance of the Pentium II (Klamath) at the same clock speed.
Needless to say, this review created tensions between Tom and some people at Intel. But later on, these tensions were resolved, and Tom became more of an Intel apologist. Tom even went as far as to defend the unpopular Covington (cacheless Celeron) because of its overclockability.
It's also pretty interesting to see how Tom's own benchmarks disproved his earlier prediction that the K6 is faster than Pentium II at the same clock speeds. But now that Tom had a chance to see the AMD K7 presentation first-hand at the Microprocessor Forum, he is once again declaring this the "next" Intel-killer. And once again, he's making these assumptions well before he has the chance to run any benchmarks on the K7.
I'll take Tom's own benchmarking at face value, but I'll also take his opinions with a grain of salt.
Tenchusatsu |
