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: Elmer who wrote (111351)	9/26/2000 11:18:26 AM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<The point here is that the P4 may not be as good as hoped for in running the old computing model. Boo hoo. Maybe in time people will understand what it was designed for. It wasn't intended for yesterday's computing.> Wow! Designed in 1995 and still ahead of its time at the end of the year 2000. What a vision and foresight! Kap

To: Elmer who wrote (111351)	9/26/2000 11:29:49 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer, Very good post wrt P4. Will people buy a computer powered by a processor that runs MS Office imperceptibly faster, or will they buy a computer that will run current and future multimedia applications much better and faster? John

To: Elmer who wrote (111351)	9/26/2000 11:49:48 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Elmer: At doing 99% of the software out there now. People do not like having to pay money to get the same software, but recompiled. Note, Intel does not provide any multitasking benchmarks for its CPUs much less for the P4. This is its achilles heel. Even Anand said that Athlon had a huge advantage over Xeon at web serving (a large multitasking load). Even those leaked benchmarks, show that P4 is worse than P3 at 70% clock over most of the standard benches. Against 760 DDR, its even worse. If P4 at 1.5 runs at the same performance as a gig Tbird on 760 DDR on most software, but at a price $700 more, which CPU would you think the public would buy? At the price differential of $700, one could afford a Kyrotech 1.6G Tbird on a 760 DDR with PC2100 (133MHZ DDR) for the same money as a 1.5G P4 on a i850 with dual PC800 RDRAM both at 256MB (at 512MB, the Kyrotech would be cheaper). IMHO, the Kyrotech would run roughshod over the P4 in all but a small handfull of tests. Mustang (or Palomino) would get probably to 2G on Kyrotech and all but one or two contrived benchmarks, would make P4 into roadkill. Using benchmarks like Tim Wilkins, a normal 1G Tbird on a KT133 would outrun a 1.5G P4 (the x87 on P4 is said to be especially bad). I am still waiting for the Intel definitive benchmarks (those highly contrived ones) for P4. Pete

To: Elmer who wrote (111351)	9/26/2000 2:50:32 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 186894

Elmo, RE:"The point here is that the P4 may not be as good as hoped for in running the old computing model. Boo hoo. Maybe in time people will understand what it was designed for. It wasn't intended for yesterday's computing" If anything the P4 will tell us just how good Intel is when they are under fire. They've been scramblin'...It will be interesting to see what they come up.. Choice 1....a good chip. Choice 2. A bunch of new benchmarks, at which the industry will laugh. The Press will love it though... which will it be... Jim