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 (141723)	8/16/2001 2:09:29 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, Re: "Athlon 1.3 was equivalent to P4 1.7. Athlon 4 1.2 is equivalent to P4 1.8." Where do you get off spouting nonsense like this? By testing with SuperPI? Why don't you actually do your homework for a change, and link to a reputable review. wanna_bmw

To: Dan3 who wrote (141723)	8/16/2001 11:50:47 AM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The off-die cache Athlon looked a lot better against PIII than PIIIe, and P4 looks a lot better against Athlon than Athlon 4. Not sure I agree with any of that. I haven't seen single 1.2GHz Pally core benchmarks that look that favorable... I've seen some nice looking dual Pally benchmarks, but I'd expect two processors to score more highly than one on many applications. You're also ignoring: 1) No Pally's for the desktop market yet (where are they BTW?), 2) Northwood is due out Q4 at >2.0GHz. So I'll stand by the comparison of P4 to T-bird, Northwood P4 to Pally / 0.13 Pally (which I think is thoroughbred if memory serves).