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: Björn who wrote (21658)	12/6/2000 10:55:04 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: But, clock for clock, isn't the PPC processor pretty fast? Yep, just like the MII, P3, and the K6-III. Overall performance is very important with nominal clock speed nearly as important (so P4 would sell better than its performance capability would normally achieve, if not for its high manufacturing and platform costs). But low clock speed and insufficient IPC performance to make up for it? Not good enough in markets as competitive as today's. Regards, Dan

To: Björn who wrote (21658)	12/6/2000 1:51:26 PM
From: jcholewa	Respond to of 275872

> But, clock for clock, isn't the PPC processor pretty fast? The G4 was, clock for clock, superior to, say, the Katmai PIII and the K6-x. Making this claim about Coppermines and Thunderbirds is a bit more tenuous, as there are many benchmarks in which either processor (especially the Tbird) outperforms the G4 on a per-clock basis. And, of course, my suspicion is that the Pally will have even higher per-clock performance than the Tbird. The G4 will have higher per-clock performance than the P4, though. But that doesn't really matter, since the whole point of the P4 design is an aim of higher frequencies to improve total performance ("per process", as has been said here before), not just performance at frequency X.     -JC