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.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (49982)	8/16/2000 2:34:51 AM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Carla..."But the comparison is contrived and is already obsolete. Don't you know that Intel already dumped you? It was nearly a year ago and has been public knowledge ever since then." The way you said that, it was almost omnipotent. But after a second look it still lacks a lot... and I'm sure many won't agree with you!

To: Bilow who wrote (49982)	8/16/2000 2:50:37 AM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Nice try BILOW but no cigar. Your analysis is guilty of what you accuse Dave B. BILOW the problem with your analysis is that you are comparing apples to persimmons. There is only one benchmark that is common between Intels benchmarks and Ziff Davis' benchmarks and that is a CPU benchmark. Also, while the 815 beat the 820 slightly at 933 MHZ on some Intel benchmarks it lost to all the 820 at 1.1 GHZ. Also, it lost on many of the tests at 933 MHZ. It was a mixed bag at 933 MHZ on the Intel benchmarks. The reason the 815 lost on all the benchmarks at 1.1 GHZ is of course the 815 does not work with processors faster than 933 Mhz. While the 820 single processor does. What do you think the results would be at 933 MHZ with dual processors in the 820??? They would not support your thesis. Your analysis is shallow and contrived.