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 (163098)	3/28/2002 8:19:21 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 186894

Dan GHz is a perfect performance index one might assume that celeron performs on par with p4 at the same frequency What am I saying, celeron performs much better than p4 at the same clock <gggggg>

To: Dan3 who wrote (163098)	3/29/2002 1:29:14 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, Re: "Re: What kind of credibility does AMD have when a 1.2GHz part is called 1.2GHz, and a 1.3GHz part is called 1500+? >> It's a very accurate indicator of the performance of other chips on the market. Most other chips on the market at 1.2GHZ and below have firm, reliable mhz, while the Intel 1.5GHZ on up chips (P4) are stricken with flacid, inadequate mhz that often fail to perform. <VBG>" Interesting. I bring up a very good point about the fallacy in AMD's model numbering scheme, and you just make light of it. I assume that even though you are unwilling to admit it, you also see the faults that I have pointed out. No point in trying to argue about it then. You have already made up your mind to disagree. wbmw