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: milo_morai who wrote (155719)	1/16/2002 1:57:53 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Milo, Re: "At this point I am, based on his delivery of Athlon. It lived up to the hype and even more. So there's no reason to doubt Dirk at this time as he has creditability and you don't in my book." You're blinded, Milo, and you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment. When you say you expect 3-4x performance, I assume you are referring to this graph here, right? event.mediaondemand.com If there are other similar claims for performance, I have not seen them. But before you take a stupid marketing slide on blind faith, you should consider the information that he is already giving out. For example, here are some rough performance targets from the graph, and some future extrapolations based on their next slide. event.mediaondemand.com Apr-00 (Athlon Classic 1GHz) - ~1.0 Apr-01 (Athlon Thunderbird 1.4GHz) - ~1.6 Dec-01 (Athlon XP 1900+, 1.6GHz) - ~2.0 Apr-02 (Athlon XP 2200+, 1.8GHz) - ~2.2 Aug-02 (Athlon XP 2400+, 1.93GHz) - ~2.7 Dec-02 (Athlon XP 2600+, 2.06GHz) - ~2.9 Apr-03 (Athlon XP 2800+, 2.20GHz) - ~3.1 Apr-03 (Hammer 3400/4000, ???GHz) - ~4.3 If you were to take the graph perfectly literally, then AMD is expecting IPC * Frequency to give Hammer a 39% performance advantage over the K7 processor at the time. If you look at the rest of the graph, though, the scores seem a little dubious. Show me where, for example, a 1.4GHz Thunderbird outperforms a 1GHz Athlon by 60%. Show me where a Athlon XP 1900+ outperforms a 1GHz Athlon by 2x. It seems AMD thinks that their processors can scale super-linearly with respect to megahertz. However, this has never held true. It should be common knowledge to most of us that actual performance scales sub-linearly with respect to megahertz. Therefore, predictions about Hammer performance are probably equally bloated. Or are you telling me that Dirk believes his processor scales super-linearly? I doubt that he does, and this should prove that these slides aren't worth the paper they are printed on (or the disk space they are stored on). Marketing slides are marketing slides, and should be taken with a grain of salt, but you are trying to claim that you have faith that the predictions of these slides (which isn't even Dirk's prediction), will continue to hold true through late 2003? And you expect AMD to deliver that kind of performance flawlessly? You are obviously assigning too much credibility, and it's unwarranted in this situation. However, you believe it because you want to believe it, instead of examining the facts. Sounds like typical AMDroid desperation to me. You probably believe that Hammer will be the savior that leaves Northwood in the dust. What will it do, Milo? 2x or 3x Northwood 3.0GHz performance? "Wait for Hammer". wbmw