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: ptanner who wrote (19483)	11/17/2000 5:48:32 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Ted, Re: Kewney's ZDNET-UK article on P4 "...Do you know this guy? Is he fairly objective?" PT, Did he not sound like he had an anti-Intel bias to you? Even with his miss on UT and a T-bird system, his report was still fairly negative wrt P4. Is his reporting fairly objective? ted

To: ptanner who wrote (19483)	11/17/2000 7:12:34 PM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

> Well, as JC's long detailed post showed Kewney hasn't paid attention to the details as his game > of choice (UT) would be faster on a TBird system. BTW, great post JC - be sure to save some > of that text for your article this weekend! I may just do that. Maybe. Not sure yet. The point of the article is mostly to divulge factual events (well, taking into the account that many or most of those tests were unconfirmed), not to spread my opinion (too much).       > I don't think the P4 has a built-in Nvidia graphics chip. I don't think he meant it that way. :) I think he meant "P4" as in "P4 system", not "P4 processor".     -JC

To: ptanner who wrote (19483)	11/18/2000 9:35:15 AM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<ptanner: Well, as JC's long detailed post showed Kewney hasn't paid attention to the details as his game of choice...> Kewney doesn't know wtf he is talking about. He may have the conclusions somewhat right, but his facts and arguments are completely bogus. Here's a nice little example: Oh, there'll be a version of the P3 with 200 MHz ram; it will go faster than 1 GHz... but essentially, the silicon engine inside the P3 is old, old, old; if you build one running at 2GHz, it probably would give you around 30% improvement at best over a 1 GHz design. My expert friends reckon you'll probably never see a P3 running faster than 1.5 GHz; there's no point. They could build one, but it wouldn't process Windows programs any quicker. It would spend all its time saying; "Ooopsie, that data is not in the cache; just hang about while I go fetch it..." This guy's "design friends" (if, indeed, he really has any) need to teach him a thing or two... -fyo