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 (163555)	4/5/2002 12:55:32 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

wbmw, RE: Also if you do the math, i.e. 66/1600, each 66 MHz increase in speed from one part to the next is really only about a 4% real increase. 4%, that's it. Looking at AMD's wholesale pricing on their web site, each extra 4% increase in speed translates into a whopping 20% hike in the price. The XP2100 (the 1.73 GHz chip) literally costs $81 more than the XP2000 (the 1.67 GHz chip) costs, and that extra $81 for 4% more speed is a bad tradeoff. AMD ripping the consumer. Isn't that what the 'Droids accuse Intel of doing? John

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (163555)	4/5/2002 2:09:31 PM
From: ptanner	Respond to of 186894

wbmw, re: Model Ratings the article said: "While 2100/1500 = 1.4, which would imply a 40% increase in speed since October, the actual clock speeds - 1.73/1.33 = 1.3 - only indicate a 30% speed increase from the 1500 part to the 2100 part. The QS ratings not only exaggerate the actual MHz gain but exaggerate the performance gains even more. This is the problem that I have with QS implying "performance" rather than a "model" system. Performance doesn't scale 100% with MHz for almost all applications and is often much lower. If MHz doesn't scale 100% with QS rating then performance scales more poorly relative to QS than MHz. While I had previously noted the Athlon Perf:QS lag and that this scaling was lower than P4 Perf:MHz I hadn't noted the Athlon MHz:QS scaling though it was obvious from the +66/+100 effect. Some of this may be the result of rounding to model numbers of 100 and a very conservative initial basis. I think informed customers will compare the performance of the processors with the applications they want to use and be aware of the affect of other components. The other customers... well, buyer beware. -PT