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: AK2004 who wrote (53262)	8/30/2001 5:43:53 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Albert, AMD's strategy amounts to "Well Intel is deceiving consumers with MHz, so we'll deceive them with ModelHertz." At least MHz is a real number, scientific and invariant. ModelHertz is based on whatever your definition of "performance" happens to be at the moment. Which do you think is more deceptive? Tenchusatsu

To: AK2004 who wrote (53262)	8/30/2001 5:57:48 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Albert, A hypothetical question: If Intel came out with processors that performed better per clock than AMD processors, would AMD then have a lower model number than their clock speed? If not, then why should any consumer trust AMD's subjective perception of their own products. Rather than an easily verified industry standard? John

To: AK2004 who wrote (53262)	8/30/2001 5:59:09 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Albert, Re: "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" Albert, you're only deceiving yourself. Intel makes no public comment when it comes to the competition, while AMD's campaign is in direct conflict with competition. Intel gives the consumer what they want, and they want megahertz. Intel releases these chips, displays the megahertz, and there is nothing dishonest with that. There is no comparison being made, and consumers get to decide for themselves. That's the beauty of Intel's situation. They don't need to sell the megahertz, because it sells itself. On the other hand, if you check out the majority of press releases on this subject, you will see several news sites quoting AMD as saying that Intel deliberately released a Pentium 4 that is slower than the Pentium III. While some people on this thread entertain this fantasy, multiple benchmarks prove it not to be true. If the media is already confused enough to print this statement, then AMD is already not doing a good job of explaining the concept of performance being IPC * Frequency. That's because deception is part of AMD's campaign, and it's clear that through spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the competitor's product, that AMD thinks they will increase their own sales. It purposely confuses people, and is misinforming as well. Changing a few model numbers is not where their campaign ends. wanna_bmw