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 (141253)	8/10/2001 11:37:47 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan3, RE:"Re: and you know, I still would buy a 1.7 GHz P4 for $135. What if a $100 Athlon is available that has 1.8GHZ silkscreened onto the chip, 1800 as part of the part number, and 1.8GHZ prominently printed on the box? And if the box it comes in is littered with screen captures of tests showing the "1.8" GHZ Athlon beating a 1.8GHZ P4?" Actually I mis-typed Should have said: and you know, I still WOULDN'T buy a 1.7 Ghz P4 for $135... I'm sure that would have changed your response. LOl

To: Dan3 who wrote (141253)	8/10/2001 11:57:47 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, >What if a $100 Athlon is available that has 1.8GHZ silkscreened onto the chip, 1800 as part of the part number, and 1.8GHZ prominently printed on the box? What if AMD got a fraud label to go with their trucculent trash mouth CEO. That combo would linger with AMD for years. All over the message boards, particularly on SI and TMF AMD, AMDers are coming up with a myriad of proposals to make AMD look better than Intel in performance, despite the MHz advantage Intel has. Meanwhile, AMD does nothing, except Jerry does say it every time they put a mike on his $200 tie. Maybe the P4, designed for high GHz, if not for IPC (until SW optimization puts that over the top too) was brilliantly conceived after all. Tony