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: fyodor_ who wrote (57146)	10/4/2001 10:06:12 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

fyodor,<<<There is a standard way of measuring frequency, yes. There is not, however, a standard way of rating computer chips in terms of frequency.>>> I'm with John. I'm totally confused by the explanations. But, in reality, we aren't the only one's that are confused. IMO there should only be one rated speed, eg, the standard way of measuring the highest frequency of the processor. The effective speed of the processor is something entirely different. There the techies can apply all the spin their imagination can come up with and endlessly debate the issue. It's like horsepower for a car. I don't know the difference between 350 vs 250. The speed of the car depends on size, weight, shape and a lot of other variables. You could also argue that it depends on the skill of a driver. All I know is I want as much horse power as I can afford (more or less). Mary

To: fyodor_ who wrote (57146)	10/4/2001 10:59:38 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

fyo, Thanks for the effort you put into that response. It is probably time for some kind new reference number(s) for microprocessor performance. The right way to do this would be to get all the players together, the OEM's and component manufacturers, and to figure a few standard benchmarks for comparing performance. NOT easy to do, as there would certainly be self serving agendas. The wrong way to do this is for individual companies to unilaterally start using a discretionary numbers. That just adds to the confusion, it doesn't clarify anything for the end user. The best solution for the consumer would be for OEM's to use a standardized performance rating for each complete system. That would include the performance of all the components combined, and give the end user a very relevant number. But that would be bad for the microprocessor manufacturers, they would lose brand equity. Folks would be buying on system performance, not some unquantifiable interaction of a half dozen components with different benchmarks. John