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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (50565)	8/9/2001 7:52:29 PM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<So you'd advocate publishing a false clock speed just to prove that clock speeds have little relation to actual performance? I don't think even Steve Jobs would resort to this level of deceit.> There is no deceit. The footnote explains everything. The deceit is to have a dog for a CPU with a 2.0GHz label on it, like P4 has. Kap

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (50565)	8/9/2001 9:02:55 PM
From: Gopher Broke	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

So you'd advocate publishing a false clock speed just to prove that clock speeds have little relation to actual performance? I don't think even Steve Jobs would resort to this level of deceit. So what proportion of a processor has to use the external clock for it to be considered running at that speed? With the P4, Intel have established that you can run parts of the processor slower than the external clock and still claim that external clock as the speed. What is to stop AMD clocking a little internal divider at 3 GHz and drive the CPU off the resulting 1.5 GHz signal? I don't see that would be "resorting to a level of deceit". It would simply be illustrating that to judge a processor by external clock speed is meaningless and it would force Intel to admit it.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (50565)	8/10/2001 1:22:58 PM
From: Charles R	Respond to of 275872

Tenchusatsu, <So you'd advocate publishing a false clock speed just to prove that clock speeds have little relation to actual performance? I don't think even Steve Jobs would resort to this level of deceit.> I share this view. Using "GHz", in my mind, would be crossing the line on defensible advertising. But I think the problem can easily be solved - as long as major OEMs are willing to accept whatever scheme that AMD proposes. Chuck