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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kapkan4u who wrote (145337)	10/15/2001 5:54:12 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Kap, <Athlon XP 1800+ performs as fast or faster than T-bird at 1.8GHz on the set of benchmarks that AMD lists on their web site.> I just checked their web site. Nowhere is there any comparison between an Athlon XP 1800+ and a (non-existent) T-bird at 1.8 GHz. All of their comparisons are with a Pentium 4 at 1.8 GHz. But that's not my point. My point is that the "1800+" number is arbitrary. Pete is arguing that Intel's Pro Forma numbers are arbitrary. Essentially he is criticizing Intel for reporting "quanti-earnings," but he seems to have no qualms with an arbitrary "quantispeed" number. Tenchusatsu

To: kapkan4u who wrote (145337)	10/15/2001 6:41:16 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Kap, re: Athlon XP 1800+ performs as fast or faster than T-bird at 1.8GHz on the set of benchmarks that AMD lists on their web site. That instills a lot of consumer confidence. In other words the Athlon XP should really be labeled the Athlon BS? John