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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles R who wrote (19234)	11/15/2000 3:24:36 PM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

> Apologies? Busting my balls? Don't worry too much about that stuff - I used to be a > CPU architect earlier in my life and am not used to making losing arguments in the field ;-) Bah! All your cpu designs sucked! (just kidding!!!) > P.S.: Now, busting balls makes me think of someone on this thread who may have thought my balls were being > busted on P4 IPC (based on Paul De Mone's arguments). Has this DeMone guy printed any retractions yet for > misleading the not-so-architecture savvy folks? Or, is e waiting for Intel to post P4 numbers on the website before > he does that? The guy clearly has a little to learn about architectures. What Paul said is his honest opinion. He's a lot smarter than you think; he's just perhaps making a really bad call here. I suspect that you might agree with that if you read his non-P4 articles at realworldtech.com. And, like you, he has done / does do semi designs, I believe. :) He is certainly not a mindless Intel drone. He is, on the contrary, the most aggressive technical source out there for reasons why DRDRAM and Merced may have been bad ideas. -JC

To: Charles R who wrote (19234)	11/15/2000 4:56:31 PM
From: andreas_wonisch	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Chuck, Re: Has this DeMone guy printed any retractions yet for misleading the not-so-architecture savvy folks? He says now that he expects the benchmarks to improve in the future and wants to wait for official numbers.. I think his latest guess (befor all these leaked numbers) was that a 1.5 GHz would do over 700 points in SPECint2000. He also said that he expected P4 to have 0-20% better IPC than Pentium III. I wonder if he will make an apology? He insisted many times that he would do so if he proved wrong and expected the same from his "opponents". It is very clear now that he vastly overestimated P4's performance and misled many investors who trusted his "expertise". Let's see how this plays out... Andreas