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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20554)	11/26/2000 1:40:01 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<Daniel: Right. You can compare whatever you want, revisionist historians are into stuff like that.> Ok, enough is enough. I take extreme offence at your claims and ask you to retract these personal attacks. The only reason the PPro ever looked weak, in some aspects, compared to the Pentium was the 16 bit memory management botch. This is NOT true. If you truly believe that to be the case, please provide some evidence. ;) and not like these... Here are some more up to date benchmarks for you to ignore in your continued revisionist history effort. Ok, this is a completely bogus comparison and you know it. You are showing benchmarks made at a time when the PII was at 300MHz or more. The PPro had been out for quite some time at that point. Offhand, I'd say people sucking up the NetBs marketing campaign shouldn't throw stones.* I will restrain myself from making the numerous personal attacks that I feel are warranted in this situation. Your claim here is completely false and I challenge you to provide a shred of evidence. In all my musings, I have compared only the P3 to the P4. There is no question in my mind that the P4 is the better architecture and you have provided NO evidence to the contrary. How well it compares against the Athlon or the like is not within the scope of the discussion. In a completely separate issue, one could argue that the 6 cycle read latency for the P4 L1 cache, when reading floating point values (as opposed to the 2 cycle latency for other data), is a "botch", similar to the one in the PPro. -fyo

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20554)	11/26/2000 2:11:57 PM
From: Steve Porter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

ALL: Okay I am NOT Intel's biggest fan.. hell I'm not even a fan of theirs.. I like AMD.. with good reason.. (some fatherly pride stuff... n/m).. Anyway, in fairness to the P4, all these benchmarks we are seeing now DO NOT indicate the performance which is possible from this CPU. With properly used SSE2 the performance of this CPU should scale up dramatically. That said, by the time SSE2 has wide spread support, AMD will likely have support and be able to scale performance along side Intel. The most impressive thing with the P4 is the bus. The least impressive thing (IMHO) is the horrible die spacing layout.. I mean was Intel going for the least dense trasistor set in history award or something? Steve