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 (73091)	3/3/2002 7:47:44 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"Basically, AMD is saying that Quantispeed is an inefficient measurement, and as soon as they find a new one, they'll go with it." Uh no. What they are saying is that they are willing to work with others, as opposed to ramming their choice down the collective throat of the the industry...

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (73091)	3/3/2002 10:47:47 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

bmw re: It always seems that when AMD has megahertz, they flaunt it, but when they don't have megahertz, they hide behind model numbers I do not have a problem with that just as long as you admit that athlon is twice as efficient and powerful as $3K-$4K itanium. Anything else would be double-standards and fud on your part. :-)) So do we have it from you that multi-billion ( and as Paul sais - that is with B) project produced a chip that is so inferior to athlon that it is a crime for intel to charge more than 99 cents per chip (or is it per pound)? Regards -Albert ps btw NW got no advantages over prior version of p4, right?

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (73091)	3/4/2002 12:01:02 AM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Is that why P4's SPEC scores aren't linear with Mhz? You really have double standards don't you. Guess you missed that post from A.W. AMD uses a total of 17 benchmarks. Intel used 8 for their FUD pdf. AMD uses a total 17 different benchmarks for three different categories: office productivity, digital media, and 3D gaming. Each category is weighted equally (so SYSmark 2001 counts for more than Quake III). found on the list of benchmarks in the white paper, "AMD Athlon XP Processor Benchmarking and Model Numbering Methodology": Business Winstone™ 2001 Microsoft® Office 2000 (Access, Excel, Frontpage, PowerPoint, Word), Microsoft Project 98, Lotus Notes R5, NicoMak WinZip, Norton AntiVirus, Netscape Communicator SYSmark™ 2001, Office Productivity Microsoft Office 2000 (Access, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, Word), Netscape Communicator 6.0, Dragon Naturally Speaking Preferred v.5, WinZip 8.0, McAfee VirusScan 5.13 Content Creation Winstone ™ 2001 Adobe® Photoshop® 5.5, Adobe Premier 5.1, Macromedia Director 8.0, Macromedia Dreamweaver 3.0, Netscape Navigator 4.73, Sonic Foundry Sound Forge 4.5 SYSmark2001, Internet Content Creation Adobe Photoshop 6.0, Adobe Premier 6.0, Macromedia Dreamweaver 4.0, Macromedia Flash 5, Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7 Half-life Smokin', Expendable, Q3, AquaMark, Dronez, Unreal Tournament, Evolva, MDK2, Serious Sam, 3D WinBench™ 2000 (Hardware T&L), 3D WinBench 2000 (D3D software), 3DMark™2001 (Hardware T&L), 3DMark2001 (D3D software)

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (73091)	3/4/2002 12:52:26 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Wanna Re What do you think about that? Basically, AMD is saying that Quantispeed is an inefficient measurement, and as soon as they find a new one, they'll go with it. <<<<<< AMD made clear from day one that quantispeed was an interim measurement until all of the manufacturers could get together and come up with a good system of measuring total system performance, which is the ultimate measurement the buyers should be concerned with. Secondly, with Hammer having another 30% IPC increase, mhz as a measurement will really be outdated; as Hammer will have a 50% IPC advantage over P4; so Quantispeed will have to be readjusted. AMD is content on using a sub-standard measurement until that time - even to their own admission. <<<< How do you equate sub- standard to temporary? Certainly the consumers response hasn't been substandard. With the even greater differentation with IPC Hammer will have, it is even more likely Quantispeed, or some replacement metric, will become more prevalent. How is that you don't find that FUD or Propaganda, yet you find that Intel's response is?<<<<< I would think that if Intel was confident of their FUD standing up, Intel would have published it to everyone, instead of their meek sheep distributers.