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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (142539)	8/30/2001 10:12:25 PM
From: L. Adam Latham	Respond to of 186894

Windsock: Re: But I am sure that AMD does not want to use SPEC benchmarks to compare the Athlon with the P4. They would be worse on the ModelHertz rating than the MHz clock. It may have already been mentioned here (haven't been able to keep up with all the posts), but I wouldn't be surprised if AMD started marketing a "performance" rating, instead of the MHz, like Cyrix used to do. They may claim in their new advertisements that a 1.4 GHz Athlon is a "superfast M2GHZ rated processor", or some such nonsense. Adam

To: Windsock who wrote (142539)	8/31/2001 1:31:31 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Windsock, <But I am sure that AMD does not want to use SPEC benchmarks to compare the Athlon with the P4.> Do you remember back when Athlon was first launch in mid-1999? AMD was bragging all over the place about the SPEC scores Athlon was able to achieve. Dirk Meyer, Athlon (K7) architect, even used SPEC to show a 600 MHz Athlon beating a 550 MHz Pentium III Xeon at the time: Message 10075517 Then in late 1999, Intel was able to pull ahead of AMD with a combination of Coppermine and better compilers. After that, AMD relied less and less on SPEC. It's funny to see the AMDroids say that SPEC is not a valid benchmark, because AMD themselves used SPEC to launch Athlon. Tenchusatsu