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 (57208)	10/4/2001 6:19:08 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

T., Oh it's arbitrary all right. Let's assume the "quantispeed" rating is based off of Pentium 4 running SPEC2000. In a few short months, Intel will be releasing Northwood, an 0.13u version of Pentium 4 with double the cache. Why would that be a problem? The new processor will most likely have a different name, different part number, may or may not overlap with model numbers that AMD is releasing now. Joe

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (57208)	10/4/2001 8:04:05 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tench: Oh it's arbitrary all right. Let's assume the "quantispeed" rating is based off of Pentium 4 running SPEC2000 Your whole argument is invalid if it is based on Tbird instead. As long as AMD is consistent in their use of the rating, there shouldn't be much of a problem with platforms. One way would be to just use the fastest platform available at the time of the first speed-grade intro (so you don't change the underlying platform when you introduce higher frequencies of the same core). Whenever you really want to switch to the latest and greatest underlying platform, you switch name (e.g. PIII --> P4 --> P5 (cough) etc). As long as there is good consistency, such a rating scheme would certainly be better than the current "MHz-ratings". -fyo