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: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (73101)	3/3/2002 7:48:10 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

TWY, Re: "Wrong. It gives the consumer the impression that megahertz is NOT a good measurement because an AMD machine of lesser MHz performs essentially equally on a well rounded fairly chosen set of benchmarks to an Intel machine of higher MHz. Even an Intel stooge should be able to understand that." You see it that way, but I don't think the majority does. The reason why Megahertz Sells in the first place is because the consumer is not interested in getting the details of more than one number for performance. That's more or less true, and you'd find out simply by talking to a few customers at your local retail store. They really are clueless, and they really will pick the machine with the higher megahertz rating, given that it's an affordable price for them (that's the reasoning - get the highest megahertz you can afford). On the other hand, AMD isn't doing anything better by putting model ratings next to the processor name. If anything, it gives more credibility to the idea that the number after the processor relates to the performance of the machine. Intel can easily debunk AMD's model numbers, and their reasoning is sound. The only problem is that they aren't offering a better alternative. I'm sure it would make Intel happy to have everyone using megahertz, but that of course presents AMD with an unfair disadvantage. On the other hand, AMD isn't doing any service to the industry by putting arbitrary model numbers down, since those don't relate to performance, either. See what I'm getting at? Even an AMD cheerleader ought to comprehend it. ;-) wbmw

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (73101)	3/3/2002 9:36:03 PM
From: niceguy767	Respond to of 275872

TWY: "Even an Intel stooge should be able to understand that." Thanks...Nice to see someone with technological background point out the "not so subtle" FUD being spewed by some of these INTC bred offspring and their accompanying mercenaries!!! These INTCites seem to believe, at this stage, that the best defense for INTC's mediocre product development performance over the past 2 years (I'm exagerrating, I know)relatve to AMD's accelerating product development gains,is a strong offence...What I find hard to swallow is that many AMD supporters become defensive whenever these guys lob their paper airplanes...It is perfectly obvios that AMD's product development performance relative to INTC's over the past 2 years has left INTC eating dust...and what's more the AMD's rate of product developmentvis a vis INTC's is verging on an exponential leap forward with clawhammer and hammer...No need to be defensive...AMD, capitalized at 1/40th of INTC, produces high quality product at a fair price while INTC produces fair product at a high price... These INTCites are living in the past when INTC product was uncontested in the mid/high end performance ranges, across all ranges in the mobile space, in the server space and very,very soon in the enterprise space... The AMD boa began to squeeze INTC the day AThy came into being...The AMD boa has continued to squeeze INTC over the past 2 years and is poised to squeeze even harder over the next 2 years...INTC's and their mouthpieces winings about rating systems are nothing but another indicator that the AMD boa has applied yet another squeeze!!!