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 (136668)	6/5/2001 1:58:05 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 186894

Doesn't look like Tom had the time to finish the review. You're right, Anand's was ready and thorough. Jim

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (136668)	6/5/2001 10:09:08 AM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 186894

Aff Tench, Tom did say this too "Dual Xeon 4 1.7 GHz is clearly leading the pack, but we should not forget that dual AthlonMP has a hefty 500 MHz processor clock disadvantage.Still you can see that AthlonMP as well as dual AthlonMP is performing better than Athlon/dual Athlon. " www4.tomshardware.com Plus you Right Anandtech ran many more tests than Tom's did. You have to admit that AMD has a better platform at this moment. M.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (136668)	6/5/2001 11:09:06 AM
From: Tony Viola	Respond to of 186894

Ten, re Tom Pabst's review vs. Anand's, what's up with this?: Anand uses 1 GB of memory, in both the AMD and Intel systems, Tom 256 MB. 2 way servers rarely sell with 1 GB. 256 or 512 MB are much, much more common. 128 MB is the general standard minimum. Anand ought to run it with 256, and 512MB. The extra memory might be helping Athlon MP score better, making up for its lower CPU to memory bandwidth by having more banks open all the time? Not sure, but there's something fishy going on. Hey, where's Scumbria! I did hear he was suspended. :-( Here's Tom's conclusion (clearly votes for Xeon MP). Summary Right now, the release of AMD's new dual-Athlon chipset seems more like a technology demonstration rather than a full-blown product release. We have learned that dual-AthlonMP is performing very well indeed, but as long as AMD doesn't supply AthlonMP at high enough clock speeds, Intel's Xeon solution has a clear performance advantage. The high cost of the Tyan K7 Thunder cannot be equalized by the relatively low costs of AthlonMP. Right now dual AthlonMP systems are only interesting for server and workstation setups, where the system price is not considered important. However, even though AthlonMP is significantly cheaper than its Intel Xeon counterpart, it doesn't make a large difference once you look at the price of a complete server or workstation system. We have seen that AthlonMP benefits more from dual-processor operation than Xeon, so that AthlonMP has a good chance to catch up and even overtake dual Xeon once AMD supplies AthlonMP processors at higher clock speeds. However, right now I wouldn't see how AMD would be able to attract a reasonable amount of customers with dual Xeon beating AthlonMP in the majority of benchmarks. Tony