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: wanna_bmw who wrote (51428)	8/16/2001 3:54:43 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

BMW, RE:"And one other advantage that the Pentium 4 has, at least right now, is that it is stomping on Athlon sales right now, forcing AMD to price their Athlon CPUs down to a lower price than what they were selling Durons for last year. Intel is giving the public what they want, and that is more megahertz. How is AMD going to compete with that, even if their chip were to have a huge advantage in overall performance?" You confuse your stompings. The general market is stomping more than anything. As far as P4, PIII or Athlon doing the stomping, who knows. All I know is that AMD and Intel have litterally no ability to apply pricing pressure. It's a freefall. Don't be fooled by pricewatch prices as an indication that Intel is holding prices. OTOH, Intel with the faster speed chips is in a better position but right now it's the lesser of two evils... Jim PS...how does AMD play the Mhz game? At least they should try something...they are clueless...

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (51428)	8/16/2001 9:55:47 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Wanna_bmw: Re: "Second, newer applications take much more advantage of the Pentium 4, thus widening the gap between Pentium III and Pentium 4 performance. When Intel released the Pentium III at 500MHz, it was only 5-10% faster than the Pentium II at 450MHz. Barely worth it. But later on, newer applications supporting SSE allowed the 500MHz Pentium III to have up to 75% greater performance over the 450MHz Pentium II (as reported in testing Microsoft Media Encoder, once it was given SSE optimizations). I know what you're going to say, and I know that not every application under the Sun received these optimizations, but the ones that people used the most, such as games, video, graphics, and Internet applications, received a majority of these optimizations. It's too bad that no more reviews would test out systems so old any more, because I think you'd find that the Pentium III 500MHz has a huge advantage over the Pentium II at 450MHz with today's applications." I think you should also check the speed of the older app on the newer processor and the new app on the same processor. The margin between the newer processor and older one on newer code may show an improvement, but if the older version is faster than the newer on the same processor, who needs the newer version of the software? The older version is faster and since, you did not need any new features in the newer one to do your tasks, why go to the newer version to take more time? This problem happens so frequently that to have so many forget to verify that the newer code is faster than the older version on the exact same hardware, lends itself to benchmark foolishness. The gaming community does check these benchmarks out on new drivers. Frequently, they run slower on your favorite game so that some new feature can be pointed to. Nvidea's Detonator 4 drivers are a case in point. Yes, they speed up graphics benchmarks by up to 29%, but they slow a game like Giants by the same 29%. Yes, P4 (or some other target CPU) runs on the newer app x% faster than a P3 (or some other older CPU) runs on the newer app. But, the newer app on a P4 is y% slower than the older app on the P3. The first part sounds good but, the later is a disaster. No one wants to pay more for a newer version of both software and hardware to go slower than leaving it as is. Yet, you think it doesn't happen at all and call the older software obsolete, because it is slower on your current darling. Much older software can do all one does with its type of software. Yes, it might be missing some features in the newer versions not used by users, but for the majority of users, the older software satisfies all their wants. And because it is missing all these undesired features and their associated complexities, they run far quicker than the newer versions on the same hardware or even newer hardware. This happens far more often than the software industry wants to admit (it has the potential to severely hurt their revenue streams mostly due to users reluctant to pay for maintenance of the software especially above the real costs of that maintenance). How many times did you have to upgrade the hardware to make a new version of windows run as fast as the old one? Pete BTW, the rotate operation is used more often than any Photoshop filter. Every time you scan, the scan is slightly rotated from vertical. Yet in the Bapco benchmarks why little, if any, small rotates are benchmarked in Photoshop? Yes, the P4 becomes much slower than a P3 of far less frequency.