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: andreas_wonisch who wrote (19781)	11/20/2000 11:34:37 AM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

andreas: I must confess that I am confounded why INTC would debut a slower performing higher priced product under the guise of its market leading technology...Seems to me that INTC has once again shot itself in the foot as the only tangible benefit to anyone from this release that I'm able to ascertain is the 1.2 gig Athy/DDR combo whose performance superiority seems to be showcased in most comparisons... Something just doesn't add up...

To: andreas_wonisch who wrote (19781)	11/20/2000 1:38:31 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 275872

<andreas: Expensive and slow: Intels Pentium 4 fails in performance test> Ouch. I think a lot of these negative comments are due to unrealistic expectations. If you compare the PIII to P4 transition to the P5 to P6 transition, the P4 actually looks pretty good. By all accounts, the P4 clocks more than 50% higher than the PIII and there is little doubt that it has much, much more headroom. Performance on "legacy code" is on-par with the highest-clocking of the old core (on a per-process basis). This is mostly due to the conscious choice from Intel to introduce brand-new instructions (SSE2), instead of trying to improve legacy code. Choices like this will virtually always result in relatively poor performance on legacy code, but provide much better performance in the long run. This is Intel's way of avoiding the problems with the x86 instruction set, while preserving backwards compatibility. Additionally, the P4 introduces a new, much improved platform, not the least of which is the quad-pumped FSB. Face it, "revolutionary new architectures" from Intel have ALWAYS been "expensive and slow" for 90%+ of consumers. For the remaining few percent that either have very high bandwidth requirements or that hand-optimize much of their code, the new architecture is the way to go. Like the PPro, the P4 is big and expensive. Like the PPro in its second version, the P4 will be an excellent product for a wide range of consumers. -fyo