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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (108261)	8/24/2000 7:08:48 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "With large interests in ZDnet, Cnet and a huge advertising budget effecting other publications I'm afraid that AMD is SOL when it comes to getting a fair shake on comparative Athlon/Willy benchmarks" Sorry to disappoint you Jim but Intel's portfolio shows no holdings in ZDnet or Cnet. Nice try though. intel.com EP

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (108261)	8/24/2000 9:04:42 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jim, <With large interests in ZDnet, Cnet and a huge advertising budget effecting other publications I'm afraid that AMD is SOL when it comes to getting a fair shake on comparative Athlon/Willy benchmarks.> Actually, I agree with Keith Diefendorff of MDR when he says that "Benchmarks Are Bunk." But I don't (necessarily) agree that it's due to some grand conspiracy by Intel and the other Powers That Be. The problem is that the performance picture has become so complicated that it's impossible to judge the strength of a processor on a few benchmarks. Computers are being put to very diverse uses, from 3D graphics development, to games, software compiling, database serving, web serving, multimedia, etc. Obviously one benchmark isn't going to be representative of all these uses. Nor is the processor the sole factor in all areas of performance. Also, my personal pet peeve is the way people tend to exaggerate very small differences in performance. Enthusiast web sites like Tom's Hardware Guide makes a big deal over some comparison that shows a 5 frame-per-second difference between two processors or two platforms. When was the last time you were able to tell the difference between 60 and 65 FPS in a 3D animation? So like you, I agree that the benchmark situation isn't going to get any better. Unlike you, I don't think it's an Intel-led conspiracy to muddy the waters. And as a rational engineer, I would hope it isn't, since basing future success on voodoo marketing is a real bad formula for business. Tenchusatsu

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (108261)	8/25/2000 10:06:22 AM
From: f.simons	Respond to of 186894

If Willy has the overhead Mhz I think it does it may not matter that much anyway. Intel will tout the speed crown, the press who loves to hype will love it... AMD will remain depressed until the market figures it all out... Jim- I know "Mhz sells" is your mantra, but do you think it is as true as a couple years ago? Compared to what was available then, CPUs now, whether AMD or Intel are mind-bogglingly fast. It seems to me that lot of people who are doing just fine with a 500-700MHZ machine aren't going to pay much attention to eithercompany's assertions of mhz superiority when you get into the 1.5 gig vs. 1.4 mhz territory. It is probably confusing to most folks. I know it is hard to believe, but most consumers do not follow the wars like the people on these threads do. It is demeaning to the public (the market) to say they haven't figured it out yet. What if they have figured it out and don't give a sht*? It appears sometimes that AMDroids use the "haven't figured it out yet" gambit to justify the wheelspinning that AMD is going through presently. If AMD has had the speed crown for a year now, as droids claim, and the market hasn't figured it out yet, it is the slowest market reaction I have ever seen. Frank