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: tejek who wrote (19488)	11/17/2000 7:06:41 PM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

> 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? The only other article I remember from him was pro-AMD, but I do not recall it being unrealistically pro-AMD. What I mean is: You can have a strong opinion without being inherently biased.     -JC

To: tejek who wrote (19488)	11/17/2000 7:06:49 PM
From: ptanner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Ted, Re: Kewney I think the "tone" in his editorial (since he didn't really get into numbers just impressions) was from the hype that inevitably accompanies many new releases in the computer world. The lack of improvement in "office applications" doesn't mean much to me since my 233MHz machine is more than fast enough. P4 will add performance potential where it is needed: high-bandwidth calculations which can use SSE and SSE2. It was odd to read that while the 1.5 GHz is nothing special (about the same as a 1 GHz P3) the 2.0 will be... since the P3 won't reach 1.5 GHz. This strikes me as odd since the 2.0 will be at most 33% faster and for the comparison he is making may not be any faster than the end of the line for P3 (1.4?). The article did note that the P4 has headroom while P3 is momentarily at its maximum until a die shrink and possibly additional L2 (last news seem to indicate it would not gain more L2 but this makes me wonder at what point a processor becomes too small - pad limited ? - does this still apply for the new packaging methods). I don't have any impressions of the author from prior articles - either haven't read or didn't note the author. It was a very interesting spin, however it didn't seem to have a clear grasp of the technology. And I believe my own posting is a little mixed up but it is Friday. -PT