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: combjelly who wrote (57294)	10/5/2001 9:45:11 AM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

combjelly: The slowest XP is at 1.33GHz and the fastest Athlon is 1.4GHz, yet AMD wants to sell the 1.33GHz XP for more money. As a result, it needs to have a bigger "number". I'm currently putting together a system for my brother and the processor I will be recommending is the Model 1500+ (1.33GHz) AthlonXP. Performance is not the reason I will recommend the 1500+ over the 1.4GHz Athlon. The main reason is power consumption. (Actually, now that Intel has released the Tualatinized Celeron (or is that Celeronized Tualatin?), I might actually recommend the 1.2GHz Celeron - for the same reason - the only problem is vastly inferior performance, esp. on memory bandwidth sensitive applications, since the Celery is stuck at a 100MHz FSB). -fyo

To: combjelly who wrote (57294)	10/5/2001 11:52:35 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Combjelly, <The slowest XP is at 1.33GHz and the fastest Athlon is 1.4GHz, yet AMD wants to sell the 1.33GHz XP for more money. As a result, it needs to have a bigger "number".> Intel never had this problem when transitioning from Covington (cacheless Celeron) to Mendocino (Celeron w/ cache). The only thing that distinguished the two at the same speed was an 'A' suffix on the MHz, as in "300A" vs. "300". Same thing with the transition from Katmai (Pentium III w/ off-chip cache) to Coppermine (Pentium III w/ on-die cache). Oh, and don't forget AMD's transition from K75 (Athlon w/ off-chip cache) to Thunderbird. AMD didn't feel the need to come up with an arbitrary naming scheme, even though T-bird performed better clock-for-clock than K75. Any excuse that "quantispeed" is meant to be compared with other Athlon processors is a smokescreen. Tenchusatsu