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: wanna_bmw who wrote (85825)	7/25/2002 7:49:48 PM
From: jjayxxxx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

wbmw, re: <Petz, I think your analysis uses too little data (only the performance difference between the top two bins in only one testing environment), and that doesn't take into account the margin of error when testing. You also assume AMD's optimistic Hammer projections are going to be consistent over every application, and I think that's a very bad assumption. Additionally, you ignore any platform improvements that the Pentium 4 might get between now and the end of the year, and in order to derive your percentage figures, you have to make assumptions about future AMD products that haven't yet been released. There are too many errors in your methodology to make an accurate conclusion.> Yes, but wasn't he just speculating with the information he had available? <I still think that a 2GHz launch number falls short of what AMD needs to get a performance advantage over where Intel is going with Northwood. A 3.06GHz Hyperthreaded Northwood has a good chance of outperforming a 2GHz Clawhammer on the majority of benchmarks, IMO. AMD might need 2.2GHz or 2.4GHz to show clear leadership, and I'm not sure they can get much farther than that without .09u manufacturing.> Isn't that just speculation based on information you have available? I think "...[t]here are too many errors in your methodology to make an accurate conclusion." :-) JJ