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: fyodor_ who wrote (20519)	11/25/2000 8:17:03 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Neither the PII nor the PIII were new architectures, so they hardly constitute a reasonable comparison Yes, but the original Pentium was. And it offered performance that was 200% of Intel's fastest chip to that point on integer and 400% on floating point without sacrificing performance compatibility with the installed software base. 2 to 4 times faster on a most applications. Almost never slower on anything. Compare that to P4 that offers, on average, performance little better than the existing previous generation chip on almost the entire installed base of software. And, in particular, that is slower than the older chip on almost all of the most widely used applications (productivity). Dan

To: fyodor_ who wrote (20519)	11/25/2000 8:33:01 PM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

fyodor: "The reason Intel's strategy works is that its potential has a way of becoming the actual fairly quickly." You better hope the past 12 months of INTC performance is an anomaly cause your comment is wholly laughable based on anything I've witnessed over the past 12 months pertaining to either the PWeeiii evolution beyond 700 MHz or the P4 hype vs. bellyflopper intro!!!

To: fyodor_ who wrote (20519)	11/25/2000 8:42:44 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Fyo, <In a way, you could say that Intel focuses on potential performance, whereas AMD focuses on actual performance. The reason Intel's strategy works is that its potential has a way of becoming the actual fairly quickly. This then leaves Intel with the ability to start from a cleaner slate (as clean as x86 compatibility allows).> I think you hit the nail right on the head here. You also bring up a good point with regard to P6-optimized software. Since Athlon is little more than a "P6-plus" (in my opinion), it's no wonder that Athlon does well on today's apps. Tenchusatsu