Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (63420)	6/25/1999 7:15:00 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572366

Tenchusatsu, <Looks like Dirk Meyer was underestimating. Then again, it could be that marketing is overestimating. Right? Nah.> Here is some ammo for you. Check the print carefully for all benchmark comparisons - it says PIII and not PIII Xeon. A little different from Dirk's presentation. Could be a mistake or could be true. Let's see. Chuck

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (63420)	6/26/1999 12:22:00 AM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572366

Tench - RE: "Then again, it could be that marketing is overestimating. Right? Nah." Even Intel does this. When the Pentium MMX came out, they updated their "Intel Media Benchmark" to include MMX instructions, and therefore make the Pentium MMX chips seem even faster than they were, even with double the L1 cache. When the PIII came out, Intel updated their IComp from version 2.0 to 3.0. In 3.0, they included the 3DMark benchamrk, but not the whole benchmark, only the Lighting and Transformation part which takes full advantage of SSE. By doing that, Intel was able to make the PIII seem faster than the PII at the same clock speed in overall performance. I am sure AMD did the same thing with 3D Now! and the L&T test. You tell me - Are Intel and AMD guilty of marketing which is "overestimating"?