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: Dan3 who wrote (132070)	4/10/2001 12:46:53 PM
From: semiconeng	Respond to of 186894

Cool. Future Intel servers will be faster than last year's SUN servers. Well, that's nice, but comparing last year's INTC product to next year's SUN product would also make SUN look pretty good, and INTC look pretty bad. ---So, that doesn't seem to be the case. The 800MHz Itanium was the introduction product/speed for Itanium last year. Perhaps when you say "Future Intel Servers", you are thinking of McKinley, not Itanium. No doubt, this "Itanium" system, was one of the machines that intel distributed for product development over a year ago. In contrast, it was compared to a Sun 420R, which is Sun's Current 4 CPU Risc Product, introduced in early 2000, around the same time that Itanium systems were going to developers. I think it's a fair comparison: The Sun EnterpriseTM 420R server is the latest* four processor workgroup server for network computing based on the UltraSPARCTM processor technology.* sun.com In a document published by Cordiant, the 800 MHz Itanium processor showed a greater than 10 fold advantage in processing secure transactions over existing, RISCbased processors. For example, a server configured with four Itanium processors performed more than 1,376 security transactions without hardware acceleration, compared to 114 transactions achieved on a comparably configured Sun Enterprise 420R system. Semi

To: Dan3 who wrote (132070)	4/10/2001 3:22:25 PM
From: Joseph Pareti	Respond to of 186894

>Let's compare some unreleased future AMD chips because AMD cannot produce them like PaloMeatxxx

To: Dan3 who wrote (132070)	4/10/2001 3:55:31 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

Blow Hard Dan - Re: "Let's compare some unreleased future AMD chips with last year's Intel products and see which is faster." Sure. How about some MuSKANK benchmarks? Or PaloMeatHead BenchMarks ? Or how about some 4-way 760MP AthWiper benchmarks? Paul