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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (133168)	4/23/2001 6:58:01 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Ten, Remember last week when you were trashing Bert McComas? Looks like you lose again: P4 1700: Clock speed throttling back under heavy load severely affects Quake 3! Apparently, in their Quake benchmarking, Hardware Unlimited encounters the effect that the clock speed of the P4 1700 throttles back under heavy load. When they test the 1024x768 HQ configuration they come to the following observation: hardware-unlimited.com Thanks to Peter on the AMD thread. Scumbria

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (133168)	4/23/2001 10:35:30 AM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Ten - Re:"Meanwhile, there's always someone who says that kind of statement every time Intel introduces a new high-end processor. I even remember when the Pentium III was introduced at 500 MHz." I can remember the "who needs it" statements when the 286 was introduced in the IBM AT machines. The same was next said for the 386 and then all processor introductions up through today's P 4. Some things never change. Windsock the Greybeard

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (133168)	4/23/2001 12:00:42 PM
From: dale_laroy	Respond to of 186894

> "For the vast majority of us, you don't need this kind of > performance," commented Mike Feibus, a principal analyst > at Mercury Research. > Why does absolutely no one make statements like this whenever AMD introduces their latest-n-greatest?< A friend of mine bought a 1.3 GHz P4. He is very pleased with the performance, but upset at Dell tech support. If he really needed the performance of a 1.7 GHz P4, he would be envious of the performance of his friends with 1.2 GHz Athlon systems. The dearth of need for any performance level higher than a 700 MHz Coppermine plays in Intel's favor because P4 clock speed will sell and P4 performance will rarely become an issue after the sale. OTOH, with Athlon, purchasers expect performance, not just MHz bragging rights.