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: Jim McMannis who wrote (141786)	8/16/2001 4:29:42 PM
From: deibutfeif	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

McJim, re:...since Intel stated their goal to find benchmarks that make P4 look good... well, duh... ~dbf

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (141786)	8/16/2001 4:51:22 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Trust me, they fixed the benchmarks. Pity is foolish. Especially since Intel stated their goal to find benchmarks that make P4 look good. Care to offer some evidence to support that assertion?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (141786)	8/16/2001 5:38:34 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Trust me, they fixed the benchmarks. You get your benchmark info from the same place you get your pricing data and the sun don't shine there. We trust you Jimbo. Really we do... EP

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (141786)	8/16/2001 6:11:33 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jim, Re: "Trust me, they fixed the benchmarks. Especially since Intel stated their goal to find benchmarks that make P4 look good." The idea, from Intel's perspective, is to prove that newer applications and usage models take more advantage of the hardware than legacy applications, and this is also in line with what they have stated. It's clearly stated in the SysMark 2001 benchmark documentation, that newer, richer application mixes were used to more closely represent real world situations. Check out the description of the Usage Model here. You will see that it differs from the Usage Model in SysMark 2000, which explains why the scores vary a lot between the two versions. bapco.com "Fixing" the benchmark suggests some kind of Dan3 Conspiracy Theory that Intel intentionally crippled the competitors scores, just so that they could look better. If you read the whitepaper, though, you will see that Bapco uses a different way of testing that other productivity packages lack. Not everyone will agree that their method of testing is the right one, but that's why multiple benchmarks exist, giving the reader a chance to see several data points. You should realize that there is a difference between promoting your product, and dissing the competition. Publicly, Intel does the former, while AMD (or at least Jerry Sanders) does the latter. wanna_bmw