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: Petz who wrote (50550)	8/9/2001 7:02:33 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Unlike Scumbria, I do believe that a PR-rating would be counterproductive. I'm with Scumbria, here. The only thing I can't understand is that they haven't already offered a PR rating. The only thing 90% of buyers see is the number used to label the chips. If the performance matches the number (or even if, as in the case of P4, it doesn't) that MHZ/GHZ label is 90% of the ball game. Consumer reports came out yesterday with a big "upgrade your PC" story. They ranked the performance of the systems they reviewed entirely and solely on the MHZ/GHZ rating of the systems. Consumer Reports. I think it was PC Magazine that said that the Athlon vs. P4 comparison would be "an intelligence test for the consumer." It would appear that Consumer Reports flunked the test - if they can't figure it out, what do you expect Joe Average to do? AMD needs to label their processors according to the performance offered relative to the competition. I cannot understand why they are not doing so.

To: Petz who wrote (50550)	8/9/2001 7:12:39 PM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

<Unlike Scumbria, I do believe that a PR-rating would be counterproductive.> It does not have to be a PR-rating. IMO all Athlon 4s and MPs systems should be displayed on the shelves and in print as say: 2GHz* Athlon MP With a fine print foot note: * Clock frequency rating is based on the average performance of a 2GHz P4 microprocessor executing industry standard benchmarks. The bar charts of the said benchmarks should be displayed on retail shelves and in print ads. A sudden, well-planned move like this one would generate a lot of controversy and free media exposure and will start a public debate of performance vs. GHz. There is a good chance that Intel will loose this debate, since they don't have facts on their side. In addition to poor IPC, P4 has few other skeletons in the closet like clock throttling and running the decoder at half the advertised GHz. Kap