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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joseph Pareti who wrote (118969)	11/22/2000 4:59:11 PM
From: Joseph Pareti	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

NEW YORK (CBS.MW) - Stifled by mounting worries that a softer economy will take a larger-than-expected bite out of corporate profits, tech stocks got slammed Wednesday, sending the Nasdaq to its lowest close since October 19, 1999. "Tech stocks are falling just as fast as they were rising late last year and early this year. It's hard to find a positive catalyst," said Joe Liro, equity strategist at Stone & McCarthy Research Associates. TRANSLATION "investors" are just clueless now as they were 12 months ago; then, the street kept the mouth wide open to swallow the crap the analyts were shoveling in; Now they throw out the baby with the bath tub. The subtle difference in the game is, that folks like Mary Meeker made $10M + a year as a bonus for outstanding crap shoveling.

To: Joseph Pareti who wrote (118969)	11/22/2000 5:07:02 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: one side claiming the P4 stinks and providing no data A ton of data has been provided. With the exception of Quake 3 demo mode (where only predicted actions are taken) and a black box, so far unreproducible version of a SPEC executable, just about every benchmark, including Intel's own imark, and the Bapco benchmarks developed by Intel, and numerous independent 3rd party benchmarks developed by various organizations over the years to test CPUs, all of them show P4 to be, in general, a mediocre chip. These other benchmarks all showed P3 (coppermine) and Athlon (thunderbird) to be close competitors. They also show P4 to considerably worse than either P3 or Athlon clock for clock - considerably worse. This was a downside surprise for P4, even after all the leaks. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if leaked benchmarks hadn't led everyone to expect this level of performance? My guess is that Intel had those early numbers leaked purposely, and then delayed the release a few weeks to let everyone get used to P4's lousy performance before the "official" release occurred and people started writing about it. Willamette / P4 has been the oncoming "deathstar" from Intel for the last year an a half. The fact that a 1.5GHZ P4 is barely competitive with a P3 or Athlon 1GHZ chip on most standard software packages is a stunning disappointment for Intel. anandtech.com Dan