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: kash johal who wrote (53058)	8/29/2001 6:11:14 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 275872

Kash I am not on the side of model numbers but to say that AMD is deceiving public is stretch and it is even worse when it comes directly from intel a4 mp 1.4 is indeed faster than p4-1.6. Unfortunately amd just stupidly created an impression that a4 mp 1.4 is equal in speed to p4-1.6 while in reality it should be measured against higher frequency p4s. as far as "SUCKS on frequency scaling" then who cares as long as performance is there I have to agree with thought that that is one stupid idea Regards -Albert

To: kash johal who wrote (53058)	8/29/2001 6:11:32 PM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

> AMD failed with the PR crap a few years ago. Could you please explain how AMD failed with performance rating? As I recall (for example), Cyrix did very well with the ratings until their chips became much slower than the competing products from Intel. This deficiency is completely independent of performance rating, though. A P150 would obviously sell for much less than a Pentium 200, but Cyrix did okay in the beginning, when their chips were performance rated at levels close to Pentium clock frequencies (and actually met that performance, mas o menos). -JC

To: kash johal who wrote (53058)	8/29/2001 6:27:25 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re:"Now AMD is introducing fake modelhertz - and one can ask why? - the reason is CLEAR - palomino SUCKS on frequency scaling" AMD: We don't suck nearly as much as it seems. (tm GV Tucker)

To: kash johal who wrote (53058)	8/29/2001 6:45:50 PM
From: andreas_wonisch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Kash, Re: If hammer was just around the corner at competitive mhz to PIV - do u think AMD would be going the fake modelhertz route? Good point. My guess is that while Hammer will perform very well (the integrated memory controller alone will do wonders) it won't be a high clock-speed chip compared to Pentium 4. If it was, AMD wouldn't start a new performance rating now. Plus: AMD official said something about "better IPC" and I doubt that is possible with a much longer pipeline. Andreas