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 (73089)	3/3/2002 6:34:08 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Andreas, Re: "clock-speed alone can't be the right metric to compare the two different architectures." Yeah, I like your link. What's next - SpecInthertz? ;-) Of course, if they added the 2.0A and 2.2 Northwood chips to that graph, they'd definitely see a different picture, don't you think? And then, what about SpecFp? Isn't floating point performance important? Re: "The True Performance Initiative is IMO a step into the right direction." What has the TPI done? They've defined the problem, but has there been any progress on the matter? I haven't seen anything relating Athlon chips to performance by AMD - just added efforts to debunk the megahertz myth. <hint to TPI> We already know that Megahertz is not sufficient. How about going on to the next step, and offer some suggests on what might be better.</hint> But in the mean time, AMD is sticking with QuantiSpeed, which by their own admission is a sub-standard measurement. IMO, QuantiSpeed is even worse than Megahertz, because instead of showing the consumer that megahertz is a bad indicator of performance, QuantiSpeed is instead aligning model numbers with Pentium 4 megahertz, which gives consumers the impression that megahertz is a good measurement, and that AMD wants their products to look like they have more of them. Re: "both AMD and Intel have to work together if they want to establish a new metric that allows to easily compare their processors." I agree that this would be the best solution. However, no matter what the outcome would be from such a collaboration, one processor family would inevitably look better than the other. At that point, I don't think the losing party would continue being cooperative with the effort. wbmw