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 (73186)	3/4/2002 12:19:33 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: What would stop AMD from, say, taking the SpecInt score of their processor, and adding a zero at the end? Therefore, their fastest 1.67GHz processor would be an Athlon XP 6970. The weasels at Intel would love to see Model numbers referenced to a single arbitrary benchmark that Intel's extortion teams could then contaminate. Like they way they had their Bapco stooges run a defective version of media encoder in the background for the entire suite of Bapco tests - so that one .dll was able to falsely make the P4 look good for the entire suite of tests. AMD isn't going to make it that easy for the crooks at Intel. AMD does a broad survey of widely used software packages, compares Athlon's performance with the model/mhz number of whatever chips the Athlons are selling against in the marketplace, then reduces the Athlon's number by about 10% to make the "+" credible. It's an excellent indicator of relative performance - as even AMD's critics are forced to admit. About the only complaint you've been able to make is that future numbers might not be as accurate as the current ones are. But their use of a broad based set of benchmarks makes that unlikely. Intel claims that it's not their job to tell their customers how to measure performance. Then they rank their chips by mhz, offering no alternative indicator, and never noting, or even admitting, how misleading the mhz rating is as an indicator of performance. On top of that, their active program to disseminate distorted benchmarks makes their program to deceive their customers even more blatant. Trouble is, after a while, some buyers begin to figure out who they can trust, and how is out to swindle them. That's the problem Intel is starting to face, today.

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (73186)	3/4/2002 1:24:14 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

BMW Re..For the reasons you have given, QuantiSpeed is great short term solution. The effectiveness lies in the results, and as you say, benchmarks and various product reviews don't lie - the Athlon is at the very least on par with the Pentium 4 to which the ratings relate.<<<<< I like the way this is going so far. <<<<The first is to debunk the notion that Megahertz relates to a processor's performance,<<<< Frankly, I think Quantispeed is there to debunk the notion that different brands or models of processors performance can be accurately judged by its mhz; not that a particular model of a processor can't be judged on its mhz. and the other is to establish another metric for assigning performance to the Athlon, which gives it a meaningful comparison against competitive products.<<<< Agreed. However, it is based on the original 2GHz rating from Intel, and therefore it is based on the assumption that 2GHz somehow relates to performance.<<<<<<<< You seem to somehow infer that a 2 ghz P4 doesn't have measurable performance characteristics. I would suggest, and I believe AMD does also, that all 2 ghz P4 models have fairly consistent performance metrics. The problem comes when one compares a 2 ghz Celeron, or a 2 ghz Tbird,(if they existed) or a 2 ghz NW to a 2 ghz P4. That is where the differences are. Because Intel sells the vast majority of processors, that is why their current model is used as a baseline. I don't see a problem with that. As far as the differences between NW and P4, Intel itself hasn't necessarily made a differentation. When Intel does so, AMD could very well update the Quantispeed ratio, if it needs to be updated. <<> A more meaningful model rating would not compare itself to Intel's megahertz rating Yes and no. Frankly, I believe most of the people here would agree with that with one caveat; that both AMD and Intel agree upon a performance metric that the people can understand and both manufacturers back. That would end the confusion. AMD doing it by itself wouldn't. They will again compare their processor to whatever the comparable Northwood is at the time.<<<<<< Yes, and I don't see a problem with it as long as the Quantispeed rating is accurate. People understand that models change over time. Will Hammer have to again adjust model numbers to compare to Prescott? <<<<< Yes, and I believe AMD will do precisely that. <<<As long as QuantiSpeed is based on the Pentium 4, rather than on absolute performance, AMD is chained to Intel's future product lines.<<<<<<< That I agree with, but I don't see it as a big negative. In fact, I would have to think AMD would be thrilled to be compared on a even par with Intels products. That certainly would raise AMD's credibility and ASPs. I am, however, an AMD investor, and I would appreciate from this forum a little less heckling when I express my criticisms. <<<<< I don't see what you are complaining about. At least you aren't being compared to this hmaly character; who I might mention has been called a stupid idiot more than once. When you start getting compared to that guy, then you have an image problem.