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: Road Walker who wrote (61939)	11/2/2001 10:08:40 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"If the situation were reversed, honestly, would you be as sympathetic to an Intel Model Hurtz scheme?" I can't speak for others, but I would. There is more to a processor than the clock rate it runs at. There have been attempts in the past to scale for this, that is wh there is MIPS, FLOPS, Linpack, SPEC and other ratings. All have their flaws, what are the flaws with Quantispeed?

To: Road Walker who wrote (61939)	11/2/2001 10:40:39 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

No, but it implies false information. I don't think the name itself implies much of anything. In conjunction with AMD's claim for it, it implies that the chip prefroms like an 1800mhz chip or better which IMO is not false. In any case I wouldn't call the naming scheme a lie even if it was BS, I would then call misleading, and say its not a good idea but lie IMO wouldn't fit even in those circumstances. A case could even be made that high mhz ratings without the expected performance is itself misleading, but I would never call that a lie because the mhz ratings are literally true. I would only say its misleading if the claim is "X chip is fatsest, see it has the highest clock rate", to the extent that Intel is doing that they are misleading people IMO. Things are a bit fuzzy these days, are they not? Every application is different. Some are faster with AMD, some are faster with Intel. Besides specFP and possibly quake there isn't to many benchmarks that show a 1800mhz P4 as being faster then an Athlon XP 1800+. If the situation were reversed, honestly, would you be as sympathetic to an Intel Model Hurtz scheme? It's very difficult, but try to put your perspective on the other side. My guess is you would be screaming "FOUL!". If they were conservative about the rating I would be at most midly annoyed. I wouldn't call it a lie. To be complelty honest I probably wouldn't put much effort in to defending it against attacks but I wouldn't be attacking it much either proably not at all. If Intel does get in to that situation temporarily (and say very generation or two of chips the IPC lead switches, but overall performance remains the same) I would hope Intel would instead just push the mhz doesn't equal performance idea. They have the ad budget and the close ties with major boxmakers to pull it off. Is there a certain level of BS on both sides, sure. But people who live in Model Hurtz (glass) houses shouldn't throw stones about lying. I think we might have gone around on this one enough, we're just going to disagree. I just don't consider the "quanitspeed" or "model hurtz" ratings to be a glass house in this analogy. AMD's execs have made enough actual false statements that you can find some good ones to jump on, but I don't think this scheme fits in to that category. Tim