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: andreas_wonisch who wrote (73052)	3/3/2002 12:38:15 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: Intel's whining about model numbers I liked the resellar response: In general Intel processors, even though they have higher clock speeds, are much slower than even the AMD PR would lead one to believe. A closer look at the comprehensive benchmarks reveals that in Office performance as well as Linux Kernel compiling, the Athlon XP still takes the lead, despite its 32% clock speed disadvantage! And this pattern holds true as we increase the clockspeed: Further, as Intel keeps changing the sockets, chipsets, memory types, and everything else, there is no available upgrade path for Intel customers. This makes for a poor value, especially considering the higher starting price point theinquirer.net

To: andreas_wonisch who wrote (73052)	3/3/2002 1:15:58 PM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Don't you love how <font color=blue>Mike Magee</font> scoops this stuff up! AMD has been very conservative of it's model numbering earlier on. Even the Intellites admit it's a wash on performance differences with a P4 2Ghz and Athlon XP 2000+ Note how the Intel Paper shows a NorthWood CPU P4 2A Ghz theinquirer.net and Intel is claiming AMD has made no architectural changes to the Athlon XP, but Intel has modified the P4 before they generated this chart. Even So Athlon XP 2000+ is on par with a NW P4(a) PS Andreas that was a great URL you posted theinquirer.net Some Athlon 2000+ marks vs P4 2A Ghz and a 2.2A Ghz. anandtech.com anandtech.com anandtech.com anandtech.com

To: andreas_wonisch who wrote (73052)	3/3/2002 2:32:30 PM
From: niceguy767	Respond to of 275872

andreas: Sounds like the XP is making its mark on the consumer and on INTC...XP's consumer inroads must be most disturbing for INTC particularly given the imminence of Clawhammer and Hammer...If INTC's p4 seems to be struggling against the XP, which is intimated (to me anyway) by the links you've provided, how on earth is it going to stand the clawhammer/hammer assault which is currently taking shape???

To: andreas_wonisch who wrote (73052)	3/3/2002 3:45:56 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Andreas, Re: "My favorite line: MHz is a factual and consistent attribute of processor performance." Within a given micro-architecture, I'd tend to agree. Megahertz is at least a factual and measurable number. Looking at the graph on page 2 of Intel's flier, it becomes quite obvious that QuantiSpeed has its faults. Either way, though, the flier represents a short and effective argument against AMD's model numbers. I would say that the majority of people reading it would find the argument both sound and convincing. This should definitely be worrying to AMD's PR. I wonder what their response will be. wbmw