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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (161292)	3/6/2002 7:05:51 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 186894

Ali, please try a little more tact. Tench was just showing Albert that the model rating does not compare the Palomino core with the Thunderbird core. He came up with two examples of why it doesn't. Albert had come up with one counter-example - Sandra 2002, which even he admits AMD couldn't have used as their basis for comparison. You know the bottom line - that AMD's Quantispeed marketing gets them closer to the Pentium 4 megahertz, thus helping Intel to propagate their myth that the Pentium 4 megahertz is the basis for performance comparison. It works out better for AMD, and Intel is still able to convince people that larger numbers = better performance. Thanks, AMD! wbmw

To: Ali Chen who wrote (161292)	3/6/2002 7:30:21 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Ali, <The SysMark does not scale 100% with frequency, every kid knows this.> Well no s--t, Sherlock! So if "QuantiSpeed" scales linearly, but performance doesn't, then why is AMD pretending that "QuantiSpeed" reflects actual performance? <The bottom line is that AMD beat Intel with QuantiSpeed marketing.> Good one. AMD will also have a Model 10,000+ when Intel reaches 10 GHz. All they need is a razor blade to scratch off whatever "QuantiSpeed" they used to print on their top-of-the-line, then stamp "10,000+" in bold font. Tenchusatsu