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: Dan3 who wrote (163096)	3/28/2002 10:46:03 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

You are buying the AMD party line about cars versus processors. And the AMD line is total utter Bull$hit. I used to analyze the content of your posts but now your intellectual dishonesty only deserves a click on Next Message.

To: Dan3 who wrote (163096)	3/29/2002 1:23:11 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, Re: "do you think that a BMW's engine should be compared to engines in other cars by displacement (mhz) or horsepower (AMD model numbers)?" Horsepower is an actual measurement. It can be calculated using real data. QuantiSpeed is not, so it has nothing to do with horsepower. Re: "AMD's model numbers are a much, much, more accurate indicator of performance than flacid P4 mhz." No, Dan. They are quite a bit less accurate. The only thing that makes them "look" accurate is the fact that AMD has chosen values that are flattering when compared to a similar megahertz Pentium 4. As long as AMD continues to chose values that compare favorably in that matter, then they will continue to "look" accurate. However, the number of benchmarks that agree with AMD's performance story is becoming smaller and smaller, yet their choice for model numbering hasn't changed. It is still ((frequency-333MHz) * 3/2) - a very consistent formula that is the basis for The Aberdeen Group's argument. Such formulas are not based on data. There is no way that this kind of data falls into consistent mathematical equations. Benchmarking is complex, and controversial, and yet AMD is trying to come up with a single number that is only an average of certain tests of their choosing. There is nothing scientific about it. I know that the only reason why you like QuantiSpeed is because of your favoritism with AMD. It does wonders for their ASPs, and gives the market perception that their chips are competitive with Intel's. But just like PR ratings, QuantiSpeed is based on arbitrary values, and that carries with it a level of deception - and arguing that model number deception is ok because Intel's megahertz is also deceptive, is not a good argument. Deception is deception, and AMD has left one form of it in favor for another - only this time, there is no hard data to back it up. wbmw