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: wanna_bmw who wrote (162550)	3/19/2002 6:15:45 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

You do not need to make every post an insult, just because you don't like to lose to someone like me. :-) Don't get to carried away with yourself. aLbErT loses to everybody...<G> EP

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (162550)	3/19/2002 6:19:43 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: if you'll notice, the ones where Intel is behind are the Winstone 2001 benchmarks - soon to become obsolete by the 2002 version of the benchmark, which is sure to show Intel in a better light. Why improve the chip when it's so much easier for Intel to have their Bapco people "fix" the benchmark? Let's see what Network Magazine has to say about Athlon servers in their latest issue. The dual 1900+ processors edged out a pair of Intel 2-GHz Xeon processors, posting a 16 percent increase in processor performance in the Dhrystone processor arithmetic benchmark and a 9 percent boost in the CPU multimedia benchmark. Impressive, considering the actual clock speed of these processors specs out around the 1.6-GHz range. networkcomputing.com

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (162550)	3/19/2002 6:23:35 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

bmw re: those links that you offered don't disprove what I posted - that AMD benchmarks show Intel to be ahead. That's because I never claimed that there didn't exist additional benchmarks where Intel was behind. this is a real treasure <ggggg>, just because benchmarks show that amd is ahead does not contradict your point that amd is behind <ggggggg> because you knew from the start that only some benchmarks shows intel lead and the rest say otherwise what a sophisticated logic we have here.... <gggggg> re: That's because I never claimed that there didn't exist additional benchmarks "This is Business Winstone 2001. AMD needs it to put the balance in their favor" Message 17218714 hmmm...... re: It will therefore be increasingly difficult for AMD to justify their performance ratings, we are back to rating now, eh? re: I'm hoping that you can keep up with this logic, not yet but I'll practice