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: Charles Gryba who wrote (151195)	12/5/2001 3:34:30 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 186894

Constantine, Re: "Since the decoder is pretty large they are trying to ascertain how large this portion is and whether the total size running at 1/2 speed is large enough to make the claim that the P4 runs at 2Ghz an invlid one." I know that's what they are trying to do. However, they are not the experts to decide which units take up what amount of space. The Intel Optimizer's Guide specifically says that the majority of the Pentium 4 runs at the nominal clock (2GHz in the case of the currently fastest model). Calling that document incorrect will require intimate knowledge of the CPU, and neither Kap nor Joe qualify. I don't think the decoders run at half clock, but if they do, it doesn't prove anything about how the Pentium 4 should be labeled. Benchmarks already show that a 2GHz Pentium 4 can give a 1.5GHz Athlon XP a run for its money, and perhaps beat it in several applications. What would this mean for a differently labeled 1GHz Pentium 4 outperforming a 1.5GHz (labeled 1800+) Athlon XP? Besides, newer applications like Lightwave 7b have 1.4GHz Pentium 4 CPUs outperforming 1.6GHz Athlon XP CPUs. If you were to change the label of the Pentium 4, you would have a 700MHz Pentium 4 outperforming a 1900+ Athlon XP. <ouch> Instead, why not be realistic. Intel feels more than justified to push the nominal clock as the identifiable label, and AMD feels justified to include model numbers, and in terms of benchmarks, they very nearly align (and I'd expect a better alignment once Northwood arrives). It's true that megahertz sells, and that's what is exciting some people about the prospect of proving that certain parts of the Pentium 4 run at slower clock speeds, but let's face it: no one is going to get all of Intel's secrets on the chip design, so no one is going to be able to make a completely informed conclusion. Therefore, trying to prove something in the face of convincing proof to the contrary is not worth while, in my opinion. wbmw