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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (169552)	8/17/2002 8:15:20 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

"Clock speed has been a measurement standard ever since the microprocessor was invented." Urr, no it hasn't. Why do you think MIPS, LINPack and SPEC were developed? Clock speed is only useful as a metric when you are comparing processors of the same family and generation. This has been know for a very long time. And yes, this was an issue from fairly early on with microprocessors. Comparing the performance of a 6502, 6800 or 8080a was even more challenging than comparing a PIII, P4 or Athlon...

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (169552)	8/17/2002 11:11:57 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

RE:"The implication here is that you DON'T think it's frivolous." LOL, you haven't been paying attention. I'm not a big fan of class action lawsuits. I just saw this coming a year ago when boxmakers were selling P4s w/SDRAM for top dollar, based on Mhz. RE"Clock speed has been a measurement standard ever since the microprocessor was invented. If Intel Legal really wanted to take off the gloves, they'd sue AMD for that ill-defined "QuantiSpeed" nonsense" Actually that works against the boxmakers case. They were selling boxes for more money based on Mhz when in fact those boxes were actually slower in performance than the P-IIIs and Athlons they were selling for less money. That is what the lawsuit is about. Maybe this one goes away. Dunno. Jim

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (169552)	8/18/2002 8:50:09 AM
From: Charles Gryba	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tench, sorry to but in but where Intel was deceptive is the fact that it had trained consumers to expect each successive cpu to have a higher IPC and higher frequencies that its predecessor. All of a sudden they abandon that philosophy with no mention anywhere. Consumers that were used to the 286->386->486->Pentium->Pentium2->Pentium3 line of cpus were obviously expecting a similar boost of ipc and frequency from the P4. What they got with Wilamette was a disgrace. I am not faulting Intel for releasing the P4, they had to in order to compete with the Athlon but they should have been more truthful to the consumer. C