SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Monica Detwiler who wrote (56979)10/3/2001 2:23:58 AM
From: wanna_bmwRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Monica, Re: "If Pricewatch is any indicator, total confusion will reign with AMD's new megapeckerenvy naming scheme."

I agree. Milo hilighted it, but he clearly doesn't get it.

Resellers are scared sh*tless about litigation, which is why they are specifying so clearly that 1800+ equals 1.53GHz and that 1500+ != 1500MHz. Whatever AMD hoped to gain by changing to qunti-speed naming conventions is lost, since most resellers seem compelled to include both quanti-speed and megahertz rating, which makes the qunti-speed rating seem like a scam.

If their marketing was worth anything, they would be nurturing those resellers towards being consistent with their naming convention, and aligning it with AMD's direction. The current wishy-washy approach is already evidence that this scheme will go down hill fast.

wanna_bmw



To: Monica Detwiler who wrote (56979)10/3/2001 2:30:57 AM
From: Joe NYCRespond to of 275872
 
Monica,

If Pricewatch is any indicator, total confusion will reign with AMD's new megapeckerenvy naming scheme.

As you demonstrated for us, yes, some will be confused. Perhaps the same way as some poor soul who will "upgrade" his 1 GHz Piii to 1.4 GHz P4 with the latest SDRAM chipset. Being confused is a way of life for some people.

Joe



To: Monica Detwiler who wrote (56979)10/3/2001 11:11:51 AM
From: Win SmithRespond to of 275872
 
Meanwhile, Intel has been honest and forthright in explaining, at length, that P4 mhz don't exactly equal Piii mhz in performance terms. Is there a mysterious 300 mhz gap in there or what?

I guess we should give Intel credit for not advertising the NetB**s* doubled frequency, though. Not that they don't talk about it as if it actually means something.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News