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: Joe NYC who wrote (56980)	10/3/2001 2:44:55 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Joe, Re: "This doesn't mean that that this benchmark doesn't tell anything. It tells you the story of P4 vs. Athlon, which is that P4 excels when it needs to deal with a $h*tload of repetitive predictable tasks (decoding, encoding), Athlon excels at dealing with ad-hoc, unpredictable tasks (program logic). Most of us knew this all along." I agree with you in some respects, but I think you are going out on a limb when you assume that WebMark 2001 is nothing more but repetitive predictable tasks. Essentially, in a multitasking environment, such as one the new Bapco benchmarks set up, very little can be considered repetitive, or predictable. There is a lot of emphasis on the OS to provide low latency switching to multiple contexts, and simultaneous data streams, which can't be predicted through any application code, or benchmarking secrets. Simply put, the Pentium 4 is succeeding in WebMark of its own accord. If you were to redesign the benchmark, what would you include? Clearly, the applications used are real world applications that are popular, and highly used. The usage model was researched, and comes with a real understanding of the user environment, something that few other benchmarks can claim. AMD Zealots obviously don't like the Bapco benchmarks because Intel outperforms in them, and it's simply too easy to explain them away by saying that these new usage models are simply Intel usage models such that they will always win. I think that you should do your own research on the area, rather than joining the crowd on this, because in my opinion, your analysis doesn't really get very deep into the spirit or concept behind the benchmark. Or, you can simply believe what you want. There will still be people on this board arguing that the Pentium 4 is a dud, long after it dominates the PC processor market share, and it's already likely that it has outsold the Athlon this quarter. Next quarter, it will probably outsell all of AMD's processor volumes, or more. It has momentum, and many people believe in its performance, whether it be through actual research or from buying into the megahertz rating. The small minority of Internet forum posters who have made it their lifestyle to discredit the Intel benchmarks still can't find a fundamental flaw with them, and instead pretend that it's common knowledge that they produce bogus results. That's ok if they want to believe that, but it's clearly not what the the majority of players in the industry believe, and it's certainly not what the average consumer believes. wanna_bmw