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 (20540)	11/26/2000 11:41:17 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Win95, fyodor. This is the 16bit memory management botch at work. You're also citing Tom's famous pre-release writeup of the PII, spec lists availability for the PII-233 as Aug. 97. All in all, another excellent episode in the revisionist history department.

To: fyodor_ who wrote (20540)	11/26/2000 1:53:47 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Fyodor Re...The linked page compares a 233 PII, a 225 PPro and a 225 P5 MMX. The P5 wins 4 out of 7 benchmarks when compared only with the PPro (and 3 out of 7 when compared with the PII). < The trouble here is that you are comparing similar mhz cpu's. The PII only had a 8 mhz higher clock speed, and of course when the software gets optimized for the PII it will win. Here in this case, the P4 has a whopping 500 mhz higher clock speed, and it still loses. Plus you are comparing different versions of the same core; not the 486 to the PPro or the original Pentium. And while you are right that the PPro didn't outshine the 486 by much, you must also admit that the PPro didn't sell a lot of chips. This could very well be where the P4 is today. Its best attribute may be that the next version will be better. However, back in 1995 Intel had the luxury of taking that path because there wasn't formidable competition from other chipmakers; now there is. Even more distressing is Intel's penchant for relying upon marketing rather than engineering to sell its chips. After hearing for all of these months about double pumped ALU's, trace cache,20 stage pipelines and all of the rest, how many people didn't expect better? AMD hyped the K7 also, but all in all, AMD delivered a better chip, which has won numerous awards, and every site, including Sharkeys, praised the chip. Here, after all of the hype, we have an a high clock, but low IPC chip, which needs help in the form of .13 size and software optimizations. The k7 beat the PIII despite the software being optimized for the PIII, not because of it. The P4 should have been able to do likewise, especially with a 50% clock advantage. That is what the disappointment to me is all about. Lets face it, Scumbria could see it coming from a mile away, without an intimate knowledge of the P4. Why couldn't Intel see it? And why all of the hype for a mediocre chip where even Intel is saying; wait for the next version.<<<<