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 (163211)	3/29/2002 6:30:21 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

albert, Re: "amd has to fit into industry standards that are defined by Intel's MHz" And that's exactly what QuantiSpeed does. Instead of defining performance, which is the party line that the AMDroids bite hook, lure, and sinker, all QuantiSpeed does is make up some lost megahertz using arbitrary values chosen by AMD marketing. That's not servicing the customer. It's just servicing AMD. Re: "It would be wise for intel and amd to sponsor 3rd party organization that would put labeling standards in place. Somehow I think that amd would have a problem with that but you would find it really hard to convince Intel" I agree that it would be a great idea to establish a 3rd party standard for labeling performance, but I also think that there are many difficulties involved. Bapco was supposed to be such a 3rd party, but would you agree that they can fairly and accurately label performance? Probably not. Don't get me wrong, though. I have always thought that SysMark is one of the better benchmarks out there, but since the majority of applications are already optimized around Intel's micro-architecture, it doesn't give a lot of room for a "fair" labeling of absolute performance. I think any other 3rd party organization could eventually end up in the same way. But in the mean time, while we are waiting for the quintessential benchmark solution, you seem satisfied to stick with AMD's problematic interim solution. Since I believe that a "real" solution is years away, I also believe that AMD's QuantiSpeed is insufficient to last until that time. That can either mean two things for AMD. Either they can radically change their methodology behind QuantiSpeed, or they can ruin their chances for credibility by sticking with it. It's not a matter of ideals, or how much you think it's better than the alternative. It's about how the market and the industry accepts it, and already there seems to be growing criticism that you shouldn't ignore. wbmw