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 (61980)	11/3/2001 8:33:46 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

John Re..Wrong. AMD is corrupting an industry standard. In the end, it's bad for both companies, because it's adds confusion for the end user.<<< What industry standard. Almost all computers , except for the PC,s are branded by no.s, not mhz. It is about time the PC segment was brought up to snuff. Intel corrupted the standards by decreasing the IPC of the P4 by 30%, so quit whinning about AMD. It seems, the only thing that can be said about the P4 is it's higher clock speed, but clock speed doesn't determine performance. It doesn't for the mainframes, and it doesn't in the PC sector either. What if AMD built the Hammer with a second clock, like the second one on the P4, and had the chip speed rated by it? Would you be defending the clock speed standard then? No, and you shouldn't be defending it now. IPC x clock speed defines performance. Period. Frankly, I think computers should be ranked by the computers overall performance, not just the chips; so OEM's can be rewarded for building a fast computer, not just a fast CPU surrounded by cheap parts, such as the P4 with sdram.

To: Road Walker who wrote (61980)	11/3/2001 9:08:10 AM
From: aburner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

John, re: AMD is corrupting an industry standard. How could they? That's what Intel already did when they decided to release a processor that is slower on a per clock basis than it's predecessor, thus making MHz obsolete as a performance indicator (something which wasn't a good idea anyway, just think of the performance e.g. Alpha processors offer). because it's adds confusion for the end user It might be confusing first, but naturally people will ask questions to clear their confusion and in the end they will be better informed. ABurner

To: Road Walker who wrote (61980)	11/3/2001 10:30:41 AM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

John: AMD is corrupting an industry standard. In the end, it's bad for both companies, because it's adds confusion for the end user. This is just plain funny. Of course you think ignorance is much better than confusion ;-) In any event, you do agree that what should be conveyed to the consumer is performance, not the oscillating frequency of some arbitrary section of the processor die, right? -fyo

To: Road Walker who wrote (61980)	11/3/2001 12:49:48 PM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>AMD is corrupting an industry standard.< Intel is the one "corrupting an industry standard". Intel introduced two clocks in the P4. Soon, it may become routine for processors to have multiple clocks. Which clock should be used if we stick to the MHz standard?