SI
SI
discoversearch

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: TimF who wrote (61856)11/2/2001 5:15:17 PM
From: wanna_bmwRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Tim, Re: "Intel saying they gained market share before Q3 was an outright lie."

In at least some quarters between Q1 2000 and Q2 2001 Intel lost market share, but I have still not seen confirmation from anywhere that Intel said they had gained market share in quarters where they haven't. Where's the beef, Tim?

wanna_bmw



To: TimF who wrote (61856)11/2/2001 6:00:15 PM
From: Road WalkerRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 275872
 
TW,

re: "Model Hurtz", is a questionable labeling practice perhaps but its far from being an outright lie.

One mans "questionable labeling practice" is another mans lie.

From an investment perspective, it depends on your bias. From a consumers perspective...

John



To: TimF who wrote (61856)11/2/2001 6:34:28 PM
From: pgerassiRespond to of 275872
 
Dear Tim:

How is the model number scheme different from Intel's iCOMP rating used a few years ago? They used to use it to prove that a slower clocked newer family had higher performance than a higher clock older family (for example, Pentiums and 486s). Did those that dislike AMD's scheme, ream Intel for iCOMP? Talk of a double standard! (I notice Intel either dropped or changed it drastically since it does not look good for P4 with the older form of iCOMP.)

Pete