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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (145374)	10/15/2001 9:08:39 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: BULL. Are they making this "set of benchmarks" clear? Tenchusatsu, The majority of the P4 systems presently being offered to potential buyers are using the i845 chipset and SDRAM. They are being marketed by Intel as "the fastest computers available" because their CPU clocks oscillate a lot. You know, and I know, that those are very poor systems compared to PIII, Athlon, or P4 on RDRAM. Yet Intel is doing everything it can to swindle the "ignorant widows and orphan" category of computer buyers into buying this awful performing over priced Intel crap instead of any of the multiple superior solutions that cost less money. AMD should be buying ads in every magazine comparing a Dell Dimension P4 to the DDR Athlon offerings from Compaq, Micron, HP, etc. AMD should list the price and performance of the models in a grid. The Athlon 1800+ would be more accurately listed as the Athlon 2800+ Anyone affiliated with Intel should be ashamed of what the company is presently doing to its customers who have trusted Intel and the Intel name. Shame on you, and go peddle your sanctimonious nonsense somewhere else.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (145374)	10/15/2001 9:57:54 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tenchusatsu, But ever wonder why I use the line "It all depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is" so often? It's because if you can redefine the definition of any word to your advantage, you can get away with anything because there will be no standard by which to judge you. I agree that it would better if there was an objective standard for measuring performance (agreed to by the industry). But there is nothing comprehensive out there that would give you an overall number, which would reflect performance. You may be completely right in that AMD's initiative is not ideal. But it's better than nothing. It's better than not measuring performance at all, and measuring clock speed instead. As long as clockspeeds served as a good proxy for measure of performance of mainstream PC processors, there was no urgent need to come up with real performance measurement. But as the architectures of Intel processors moved in one direction (sharply lower IPC) and AMD moved in the opposite direction (slightly higher IPC), the need for the performance measurement became urgent. I would have preferred an industry approach to this, rather than unilateral move by AMD, but in absence of an industry standard, AMD had no choice but to move unilaterally. If Intel were to release a new Pentium 4 tomorrow which competed against the Athlon XP clock-for-clock (and I'm talking about real clocks, not "quanticlocks"), do you honestly think Jerry "We'll have a model 10,000 by the time Intel gets to 10 GHz" Sanders would give up the quantispeed nonsense? If (when) Intel regained performance lead, do you think Intel will keep it a secret, and the world would depend on Jerry Sanders to announce it, or reflect it with quantispeed (or whatever)? AMD marketing has hard enough time to get the truth out. The last thing you need to worry about is AMD spreading a falsehood, and Intel (industry, consumers, you name it) being somehow victimized by it. Joe