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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (161309)	3/7/2002 11:25:18 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 186894

"The answer is that the number is arbitrary. But you won't see AMD admit that in their fluff piece." Maybe. But, you wanted the benchmarks, that is what I gave you. Sure, the description of the methodology is weak, but what do you expect from marketing? After all, they use computers with only one mouse button... On page 8, they try to do some justification. They claim that about 3 percentage points on the graph in Fig. 2 (on page 7) represents a 100 difference in model numbers. Whether or not this is justifiable or not cannot be determined since they didn't include the scores for 1.3GHz, 1.2GHz, 1.1GHz and 1.0GHz Tbirds. Including that information would have made their claims more credible. They chose not to include that information for what ever reason. The comparison against the does seem to indicate that their methodology is close to valid for Willamette, although it indicates that at some point, they will need to rescale it.