SI
SI
discoversearch

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: jcholewa who wrote (20113)11/21/2000 6:02:25 PM
From: Jim McMannisRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 275872
 
RE:"That's because the 6x86 offered lower overall performance, not just lower MHz."

True overall but I'm sure you will remember that the
6x86 was the champ at integer. Did well in a lot of those old Winstone scores...
OTOH,
Something happens when an Intel chip gets beat soundly on certain benchmarks....
The benchmarks that "matter" seem to evolve to favor the Intel chips strength.
This happened with the 6x86 and the K6...
And unless it's questioned vigorously it will happen with the P4 versus the Athlon...
All The P4 has to do is win 1/2 the benchmarks and the Mhz will take care of the rest.
This is why I seek to bust the FUD...

Jim



To: jcholewa who wrote (20113)11/21/2000 11:41:36 PM
From: Joe NYCRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
JC,

> The Pentium, Pentium II, K6 couldnn't compete on a Mhz to Mhz basis with the Cyrix 686...

That's because the 6x86 offered lower overall performance, not just lower MHz.

Also, there were tons of areas where the 6x86 had lower same-clock performance.

Vs. K6? Name one. Actually, there may be one, but not tons.

Joe


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News