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 (73228)	3/4/2002 3:50:41 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

wbmw, Megahertz is not accurate. Yet, when AMD puts out a model number that "looks" like megahertz, lots of people like to call that* accurate. I wouldn't, however.* Ok, so let's just say: MHz < Quantihertz < ideal measure of performance I am not claiming that QuantiHertz = ideal measure of performance It is just obvious to me that with 2 processors that are now mainstream (AXP and P4) QuantHertz rating of Athlon chips is better than measure than MHz, given the fact that Intel P4 is the dominant part, and AMD being Avis or Pepsi of the CPU business competes with P4. Joe