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: Road Walker who wrote (145395)	10/15/2001 11:08:39 PM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 186894

You could say the same thing about p4. You have to run parts of it at 4Ghz to equal a 1.2 Ghz Tualatin in INT apps. M.

To: Road Walker who wrote (145395)	10/16/2001 12:59:17 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 186894

John, But AMD chose to use a scale that is identical to MHz. They are hoping that the consumer will think that the Athlon 1800 runs at 1.8 GHz, period. There were 100 other ways to compare performance, AMD took the low road. Consumer has no idea what GHz means. When he is looking at 2 computers, he wants to know which one is better, and he uses the number that's next to the CPU as a criterion of better / worse. Looking at, say 1.53 GHz Athlon XP (Model 1800+) and 1.7 GHz P4, he would think that 1.7 is better, which would clearly be an incorrect conclusion. If AMD wants to reinvent the standard, go for it. But trying to confuse the consumer doesn't benefit the AMD brand. Frankly, it's sort of sleazy. 2 things: 1. There is no AMD such thing as AMD brand. 2. I strongly doubt that you believe what you posted. I would leave the FUD part to the experts (Elmer). You can claim all you want the Intel suddenly got deceptive. I don't think I said deceptive. Intel just benefits from current confusion (frequency = performance). Intel just happily ended up in a situation where Intel is able to sell an inferior system to an uneducated buyer, while the buyer is under the impression that he is buying a superior system. Intel has no incentive to prevent people from buying Intel based system by mistake. It's kind of like the person who accidently ended up with a site whitehouse.com This used to be a porn site during the Clinton years. The site benefited from people's mistakes, by getting more hits. Joe

To: Road Walker who wrote (145395)	10/16/2001 11:22:18 AM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 186894

"Intel is reporting the MHz of their processor, in the same way it has been reported since the PC was invented." I see you are very persistent in your crusade. Didn't you admit on AMD thread that you have little idea what the definition of "frequency" is: Message 16450087 Message 16453320 Message 16453367 And then, even after a couple of lengthy explanations,e.g. Message 16452749 Message 16453367 you still insist on your fallacy? People are telling you, MHz is not equal to performance. One last time, an example you might be comfortable with: Intel Itanic running at 800MHz, spec.org posted performance score of 701 (SPECfp2000). At the same time, a Pentium-4 processor running at 1900 MHz, spec.org scores on the same benchmark at 696. I think you are not going to accuse Intel of using "different frequency standards" on their own processors? - Ali