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 (163126)	3/29/2002 9:18:10 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: As long as AMD continues to chose values that compare favorably in that matter, then they will continue to "look" accurate. Exactly. And that statement confirms the unreliability and irrelevance of picking one of the chip's clocks to be the sole indicator of performance. Remember when Motorola tried to market the 33mhz 68030 as a 66mhz chip because it ran it 66mhz internally (while the memory bus ran at 33mhz)? Intel, and everyone else, laughed that number out of relevance - and the relative performance of the chips let them do it. Then came the "DX2" and "DX4" versions of 66mhz, 75mhz, and 100mhz chips and we began getting used to going by that internal clock as a shorthand heuristic for performance. The problem with P4, is that, like Motorola'a 68030 number, the number Intel picked for a model number doesn't hold up when compared to PIII, Athlon, etc. Model number 2000 P4 has a 400mhz FSB, a 1000mhz connection to cache, a 2000 internal clock, and a 4000 internal clock. Intel picked the 2000 internal clock to be their model number, but the number should probably have been a mix of the connection to cache (1000) and the main stepper (2000). And buyers know it from the chips flacid IPC relative to PIII and Athlon. Model number 1.5GHZ P4 should probably have been called a 1500/750 - then buyers would have been comfortable using that number to compare it to PIII and Athlon. By the way, don't you think that claiming a cache as full speed (compared to the model number clock) when it operates at "full speed, transferring data on every other clock" is just a bit disingenuous? Transferring data on every other clock is half speed the way most people look at it.