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 (73102)	3/3/2002 8:25:26 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: it seems that they've finally decided to debunk AMD's model number myth. You are totally and completely biased towards Intel - which is proven by such a statement. AMD's model numbers reflect relative performance far more accurately than a simple mhz to mhz comparison would. At least, they do with the only other processor anyone will be directly comparing it to. You know this is true. If there is a myth, it is the myth that mhz are a good indicator of performance. There is no model number myth - model numbers are model number, just as mhz are mhz. The myths comes in when people start using one or the other as the best indicator of performance. Now, you tell me, which processor, overall, is the better performer on software users are likely to be running: A 1.6GHZ AThlon 1900+ or a P4 1.6GHZ chip? Try to be honest. Now, which is the myth, model numbers equal performance or mhz equals performance?