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: pgerassi who wrote (74260)	3/12/2002 1:49:20 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Pete, "Evidently you do not want to hear what doesn't agree with you. You methods are flawed." Heck, why it took _THREE_ times to point you that you took data from two incompatible systems? You took wrong data, found "excessive variance", and built you case that the data accuracy is not enough to make projections. Even after THREE times I pointed to you that your basis of conclusions is wrong, you have no guts to admit the obvious. Instead of saying "sorry, I f*sked up looking at wrong data", you continue to BS me with unsubstantiated claims that the "method is flawed". In the previous post you wrote: "And using different methods yields vastly different results. Thus both you and I are not have good enough models" Excuse me, "both"??? I proposed a formula that covers all 8 (eight) data points to better than 0.2% accuracy with two parameters only. In case you have difficulty with math, it means that only two points are necessary to find these two parameters. Please go ahead and try any two points from that set that are 10% apart, and you will find out that any pair will give you almost the same parameter values. You even can experiment with sensitivity to noise. But where is your model? I must missed it :-). Now, "When and if, a 3.0GHz P4 comes out, we will see what its SPEC scores will be. Then and only then will we truly know whether you prediction comes close. MOre likely it will be moot as SPEC may go to a new set by then or major changes in the platform may occur." More likely it will be moot. But notice, in your list of possible changes (platform and SPEC itself), you forgot to mention the fastest evolving component of the SPEC benchmark - Intel's _COMPILER_. Is it intentional, or you still did not get it, do you? And you are dealing with software too, Linux drivers I heard? Geez, why it is so hard to admit that you were wrong? Noone will deprive you of a promotion or salary rise (unless you submit this exchange to your boss for annual review<g>). "I see no further need to continue." Me too. - Ali