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: AK2004 who wrote (163094)	3/28/2002 9:25:26 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Albert, <The report said that Model Numbers are derived from P4 performance and they are not> Sure, Albert. On AMD's web page, they compare the Athlon XP 2100 to a Pentium 4, NOT another Athlon XP. So Intel paid Aberdeen for the report. I'll bet Aberdeen has at least as much integrity as Arthur Andersen. Tenchusatsu

To: AK2004 who wrote (163094)	3/28/2002 10:37:40 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Lets try these issues from the Aberdeen report, not the ones that you manufactured without reading the actual report. 1 AMD does not report its BAPCO results as required. 2 Intel results reported on BAPCO are higher than the results in the AMD benchmark tests. 3 All AMD comparisons are with Intel based systems. There is no 2100 Athlon to compare. 4 The Intel target keeps moving. A P4 2GHz A (Northwood) has higher performance than a prior P4 2100. Yet AMD measures against yesterday's news. 5 AMD uses yesterday's benchmarks like Winstone 2000 and gives them a large weight factor. AMD does not use current benchmarks. 6 The Anderson "approval" uses NO STANDARDS but relies on its "reputation and judgment", that of an indicted felon, to approve the AMD QuantiHurtz. There are other but they can wate until you address these issues.