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: Road Walker who wrote (53283)	8/30/2001 7:09:08 PM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

> I didn't know that, I'm not a processor historian. Were > there other circumstances that prompted this > underperformance admission? Good question. I was practically a fetus back then, so it's hard for me to remember the details. Best I can recall, Intel did an amazing job explaining that Pentium MHz werent the same as 486 MHz, so everybody knew beforehand that such chips would underperform Pentiums. I do not think that AMD was being angelic or altruistic about this. On the other hand, AMD was not legally ordered into it or threatened to do it. If I had to guess, I'd say that they simply decided that the wisest move for the business would be to acknowledge the performance level of the processor. Of course, they did not hide what the frequency was like they are allegedly doing this time around. _ -JC