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: Joe NYC who wrote (84380)	7/8/2002 12:00:05 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

If 2 processors have the same QS ratings, say 2400, they should deliver roughly the same performance. If they don't, AMD will be opening itself to such an attack that the credibility of QS would collapse So you are saying that the 3400+ QS rating of Hammer is relative to a Palomino? EP

To: Joe NYC who wrote (84380)	7/8/2002 2:01:06 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

If its called a Duron, I believe AMD is perfectly justified in having a different QS rating than for the Athlons. Durons are made to compete with Celerons. AMD never advertised QHz as being an absolute standard, just that X QHz is equivalent to X TBird MHz. Similarly, they can claim that X Duron QHz is equivalent to X Duron-Spitfire MHz. Lets face it, there is no absolute ranking of performance available that anyone accepts. "Intel MHz rating" is the de-facto standard. And unless AMD gets 51% market share, it will remain that way. If UMC can make Bartons with MHz as high as Intel's Celerons, AMD will probably avoid the Quantispeed rating on Durons entirely and stick with MHz. For Christmas/1Q'03 buying, anyone in their right mind would know that 2000 Barton MHz is much faster than 2000 Celeron MHz. I could be totally wrong on this. At first glance it appears nonsensical to position a more advanced core, Barton, as a Duron, and an older core, Palomino as an Athlon. But perhaps the new non-SOI Barton is specifically designed to be manufacturable by UMC at low cost. If UMC Barton scales to higher-than-Palomino0.13 MHz, AMD will sell the top Bartons as Athlons. If it scales to lower MHz, they'll sell them as notebook chips and Durons. At least that's what my plan would be. Petz

To: Joe NYC who wrote (84380)	7/8/2002 8:23:39 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: If 2 processors have the same QS ratings, say 2400, they should deliver roughly the same performance. If they don't, AMD will be opening itself to such an attack that the credibility of QS would collapse When Intel began shipping P4 at 1500, which had performance little better than PIII 1000, and performance that was worse than Athlon 1200, AMD couldn't get more than $271 for Athlon 1200, while P4 1500 was selling for $745. The "Intel Premium" is reflected by the $299 price for PIII. jc-news.com The number is all that matters - things like SDRAM P4's have made performance nearly irrelevant. I hold great hopes for hammer, mostly because it can be marketed as a 64-bit chip. Dan PS - JC, are you still out there? Even if you can't work on your site these days, we'd still appreciate hearing your opinions.