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: wanna_bmw who wrote (73080)	3/3/2002 5:35:53 PM
From: andreas_wonisch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Wanna_bmw, Re: This should definitely be worrying to AMD's PR. I wonder what their response will be. Oh, they already have responded. I've found this on my webserver: bielefeld.netsurf.de:8080/~a_wonisch/amd/mhzperf.gif ;-) Andreas PS: I tend to agree with you that the model rating can't scale forever as it is now. However, clock-speed alone can't be the right metric to compare the two different architectures. The True Performance Initiative is IMO a step into the right direction. However, both AMD and Intel have to work together if they want to establish a new metric that allows to easily compare their processors.

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (73080)	3/3/2002 7:10:33 PM
From: Gopher Broke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

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. I am flabbergasted. I started writing a long response then I realized the gulf between our viewpoints was insurmountable. How can that graph be anything except an attempt by Intel to deceive? How can the benchmarks in it be anything except a distortion of the truth? How come Intel have done a U turn from their position six months ago that MHz was not a good measure of performance? Sound and convincing? On the contrary. I think Intel is losing their credibility fast.