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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (80558)	5/23/2002 5:15:28 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, I am not talking about where NW performance is or whether Hammer is going to be out on time or not. If it does and if it meets its performance rating, it will be substantialy quicker than NW at 3Ghz. What do you base this on? Is the 3400+ compared to what a Palomino would do at 3.4GHz? That seems to be how AMD defines their Quantihurts and it does not compare SPEC scores. A 3.4GHz Palomino would not match a 3GHz Northwood, particularly if the NW was running RDRAM on a 533MHz FSB. AMD refuses to quantify their Hammer hype and considering their many problems you can't blame them. You guys have bought the hype hook, line and sinker but you're the same guys who believe AMD has "World Class Yields" even though they can't ship anything. AMD has nothing to sell now but hype so of course it's going to be world class. What else would you expect? EP

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (80558)	5/23/2002 5:21:29 PM
From: ptanner	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

C, re: "don't you think that a 3400+ ( >70% increase over the 2100+) will beat a 3Ghz NW ( a 40% increase over the 2.4Ghz )?" I have doubts as the model ratings have not been scaling as well as P4 MHz using the performance data from AMD. It will be interesting to see AMD's updated results with the release of the 2200+ as they should then include NW and preferably NW @ 533FSB. EDIT: AMD initially had some margin but this was being consumed rapidly as the comparisons progressed to the 2000 level and NW alone likely used up the margin at 2000... then add on 533FSB... AMD will probably avoid a comparison with the NW@533 but should at least use NW@400 with the next update. EDIT2: By the release of Clawhammer we should also be seeing some dual DDR for P4 desktops -- Via, SiS?, and perhaps Intel as well though they may keep this for the Xeon only a bit longer. -PT