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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (53257)	8/30/2001 5:06:54 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Ten re: to change the rules of the "MHz sells" game I did not know that the rules were that Intel is allowed deception but amd were not. 1) Intel stated that 2GHz is a speed of the processor 2) Intel stated that the competitors top speed is at 1.4Ghz 3) Intel said that while itanium frequency or clock is at only 800MHz it is, in fact, much faster processor that p4 well, if 2GHz is a measure of speed then top athlon is twice as fast as Itanium. And since Itanium is faster than top p4 then athlon is faster than p4 by at least a factor of 2. And, please, do not give me the BS about different types since athlon is not the same as p4 either. OTOH 1) amd decided not to display frequency of the chips 2) amd is not hiding the fact that the frequency of the chip is different from the model number 3) amd designed model number in such a way that the buyer would have a reference point in comparing p4 and athlon amd is open about what they are doing and they do not have double standards as intel. Amd maybe bad at marketing but they are honest about their chips while intel is trying to misinform and confuse the public Regards -Albert

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (53257)	8/30/2001 5:37:13 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tench Re.. No matter what, this strategy will backfire exactly like John Fowler predicted.<<<<<<<< Why? If its the truth, AMD should have no trouble. As desktops acquire more and more power like mainframes, isn't it just as likely they will eventually be rated in the same way, which is performance vs mhz. If we look at cars, airplanes, trains, ships, etc. most of them reached a plateau and then leveled off. While I will never pretend to know the max. easily sustainable speed without hitting timing problems etc.; eventually computer speeds at a reasonable cost, will have to level off and performance will define the computer. The conservativeness of the ModelHertz numbers is only a smokescreen covering AMD's true intention: <<<<<<<< Or it may be the truth which Intel will have a hard time debasing. to change the rules of the "MHz sells" game that they happen to be losing big time.<<<<<<<< Apple has for yrs been able to sell a lot of computers based upon performance, rather than mhz. Will increased speed or increased performance be the way we define mainframes or desktops in the future. Most supercomputers nowadays are hundreds of simple computers hooked together to do massive calculations. Isn't it likely that desktops will also follow that path in the future; parallelism rather than pure speed. Wouldn't Jackson technology be a part of that?