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 (169732)	8/21/2002 6:29:02 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 186894

wbmw, Time to get the 'beez a buzzin. Rate them as total processed cycles per MHZ(integer as well as FP). The P4 has 2 of each and the Athlon has 3 of each. That way it would look thusly. a 1 Ghz P4 would have 4 gig I/F cycles and a 1 Ghz A4 would have 6 gig I/F cycles per second, so a 2 gig A4 and a 3 gig P4 should be about the same, which is more or less what we see, in fact other architectural differences make the A4 lag this a little, so you need a 2.2 gig A4 to beat a 3 gig P4 One wonders why Intel did not use 3 of each as well as a 12 stage path. That way AMD would have been waaay back instead of ahead in I/F cycles per second. With .13 and .09 coming soon, they should have been able to do that at least? Any of you geniuses know why not? Was it because they did not have enought time to perfect that design since they thought the IA64 would kill? Now that it is dead certain that the Itanic has hit a cold piece of steel floating(hollowed out and shaped like a hammer, but an iceberg in name and density) in the arctic, and will sink with few survivors. After all what engineer would ever put "worked on design team for ill fated Itanic CPU" (that one into the circular file please), so none will ever admit to being such a survivor of what looks to be the largest and most notorious failure in CPU history What is Intel to do? Up a creek with no paddle, and nothing at all to drink, you know what creek it is. Bill

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (169732)	8/22/2002 8:35:02 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

WBMW, re: In my opinion, multiple numbers will confuse the consumer, and any single number will fail to capture the performance for different applications. Well, you could have one average number for business apps, one average for games, etc. And then you could average those for an overall system performance rating. The consumer could make his decision based on his expected use of the system. re: I see no problem to listing megahertz as a measurement of CPU clock cycles per second, just as long as there is a way to also identify advantages in the micro-architecture. IMO, that is what is "confusing the consumer" right now. re: The actual solution to this problem may be difficult indeed, but as long as one company or the other is ahead in megahertz, I don't see much of a compelling reason for them to pioneer in this area. The component manufacturers want the specs to stay the way they are, to preserve their brand equity. They want folks buying "AMD" or "Intel" computers. If the systems were independently rated, some of the brand equity would transfer to the OEM's; the ones that could build the best performing systems for the dollar would win the consumer. Then folks would be buying "Dell" or "IBM" computers, regardless of the component's brand. (and without brand equity, component prices would come down) I'm talking from the consumers perspective. From an Intel investors perspective, I like the status quo. John