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 (73119)	3/3/2002 11:57:48 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I don't think I could ever get you to see eye to eye with me, so I'm not going to try. Right now, AMD's model number system is no better than megahertz. It most certainly is better than megahertz. It is not the best and that is what the TPI should strive to provide. But it is far better than simple MHz. If you don't accept that, then don't waste my time with further argument. THE WATSONYOUTH

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (73119)	3/4/2002 2:45:20 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

BMW Re...There's really no way to relate AMD's model numbers to performance, except to relate it to Intel's Pentium 4 megahertz, and that's just plain idiotic, if the whole point of creating model numbers was to debunk Intel's megahertz.<<<<<<<< Sure there is. One AMD Quantispeed = 1 NWmhz. Therefore AMD XP2000 = 2.0 ghzNW. How do we get the Quantispeed ratings. By comparing benchmarks. HOw do we compare figure skating performances, if the skaters do different type of manuvers, except to give points for each manuver. How do we figure out grades, except to give points for each project, test etc. Quit thinking the consumers are too stupid to know anything about rating systems; because they do. Mhz itself is just a rating system. Maybe it is about time to give the consumers a better rating system.