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 (73117)	3/4/2002 2:25:29 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

BMW Re..Model numbers only makes the Athlon XP look better with respect to the Pentium 4 from a marketing perspective. It has no relevance to performance, and in fact, it's even less accurate<<<<<<<< Are you sure you want to say that? Why would comparing XP 2000 to 2.0 ghz NW has no relevance to performance, unless you are insinuating that NW itself has no performance.

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (73117)	3/4/2002 6:29:24 AM
From: andreas_wonisch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Wanna_bmw, Re: QuantiSpeed is quite a bit less accurate than Intel's megahertz. That depends on what processor is scaling better with clock-speed. If e.g. the Athlon XP scaled 3/2 as fast as the Pentium 4 the model rating would be justified. However, I suspect that they scale about the same, probably the P4 even somewhat better due to higher memory bandwidth. IMO the problem is that when AMD introduced the model rating it was very conservative. But with the 3/2 ratio between model rating and clock-speed it is becoming less and less conservative. Northwood having 512kb L2 cache didn't help either. You might argue that AMD deliberately introduced a very conservative rating to make a good first impression and now stretches it credibility. I don't think that this is the case since this would backfire pretty soon. Either they have some surprises in store for Thoroughbred (from a IPC standpoint) or they hope that the current rating will be good until the Hammer introduction. Andreas

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (73117)	3/4/2002 3:07:04 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

wbmw, Model numbers only makes the Athlon XP look better with respect to the Pentium 4 from a marketing perspective. It has no relevance to performance, and in fact, it's even less accurate. Now how is MHz accurate, if every processor has different performance at given MHz? I agree about marketing angle. Here, AXP model numbers reflect their performance vs. P4 more accurately than MHz. SpecInt Base Peak P4 1.7 573 587 P4 2.0 640 656 AXP 2000+ 697 724 P4 2.0A 722 735 Joe