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 (53273)	8/30/2001 6:58:15 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tench Re<<<<<<<<Their only purpose is to destroy the notion that MHz equals performance.<<<<<<<<< But in truth mhz doesn't define performance anymore than rpm defines an engines power. Why not define a computer by performance? Use spec, benchmarks, Q3, whatever, but it should be possible to define a computers performance, more accurately than mhz does. In addition, we should consider that most people don't necessarily need the fastest computer anymore , as long as it performs well on programs the customer runs. Certainly, most computers sold now are in the 1 ghz range; not the high performance 1.4 A or 1.8 P4. That is why Modelhertz may be an idea whose time has come. Instead, they're conjuring up those numbers out of thin air. <<<<<< AFAIK the numbers are even to you conservative, easily defendable parameters, based upon the average benches we have seen. It may be possible to come up with more accurate benches, but I don't see anything wrong with it, if it is the truth. Ask yourself this: What's stopping Intel from labeling their 2.0 GHz P4 as a "Pentium 2500"?<<<<<<< Nothing. What is the difference? Then AMD will simply market their 1.66 ghz (when it arrives) as equal in performance to the Pentium 2500 if that is the case. A lot of products are marketed that way, including the Apple.