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 (53308)	8/30/2001 8:24:30 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 275872

Ten like I said, I do not like what amd is doing either. Regards -Albert

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (53308)	8/30/2001 8:36:59 PM
From: Charles Gryba	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tench, why do you think modelhertz equates with performance? Cars for example have different models to indicate certain characteristics but no absolute performance. Take the Celica for example. It has three flavours. ST, GT and GTS. The differences being not only engine output but layout, interior/exterior equipment etc. I think that AMD should just market the modelhertz but not even bother comparing them with equivalent Intel models. Use the modelhertz designation only as a fancy selling name like GT, GTS, Fuel Injection, AWD you name it. Add fancy names and the public will buy. Someone should mention this to AMD. If they don't make direct comparisons to Intel models no one can cry foul. Leave it up to magazines and competitors to find out what performance means and how the modelhertz correlates with competitor's Mhz. Constantine p.s. I posted the exact same thoughts a month ago and no one cared :)

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (53308)	8/30/2001 8:47:30 PM
From: Gopher Broke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

But AMD's alternative is to equate ModelHertz with performance. That is even more bogus than equating MHz with performance. What is all this about "modelhertz"? The number is simply a product number that gives the consumer a reasonable idea of what the processor can do. AMD is saying an Athlon 1.4 will run your applications about as fast as a P4 1.6. Seems a perfectly reasonable, even conservative, positioning to me. If the consumer is concerned then they will ask the salesman. AMD have set the bar sufficiently low that I doubt many will refute AMD's performance claims. I don't see what the big issue is here. If anything, I have a bigger issue with Intel selling the P4 without a warning on the box that the MHz does not equate to the "industry standard" of the Pentium. That is more bogus that anything AMD is trying to do here.