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: fingolfen who wrote (141498)	8/13/2001 6:34:45 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Fingolfen, Re: "The P4 is therefore equivalent to or better than the K7 in 75% of the benchmarks. The K7 is equivalent to or better than the P4 in only 50% of the benchmarks." Can't trust your results, because you forgot SuperPI, and that's by far the most real life, unalterable benchmark out there. Just ask Dan or Pete. They'll tell ya! <ggg> wanna_bmw

To: fingolfen who wrote (141498)	8/13/2001 6:52:56 PM
From: muzosi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The P4 is therefore equivalent to or better than the K7 in 75% of the benchmarks my calculation is P4 is only better in %50 of the benchmarks: (6/(3+6+3))*100.

To: fingolfen who wrote (141498)	8/16/2001 12:05:11 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "Pulling closer to even" implies that the P4 is still behind the K7 in overall performance Yep - just about any benchmark that wasn't carefully tuned by Bapco/Intel to favor P4 shows how strong Athlon is. P4 1600 Athlon 1200 Athlon better % Sysmark 98 380 447 18 Sysmark 2000 W98 187 219 17 Sysmark 2000 2D 218 233 7 Webmark 2001 248 208 -16 Did Intel fix the chip or did Intel/Bapco fix the benchmarks? I think it's pretty clear that Intel/Bapco fixed the benchmarks.