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: porn_start878 who wrote (169819)	8/23/2002 9:37:29 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Reading the fine details.... "Test results reflect the use of a software patch which allows the MicrosoftR Windows MediaTM Encoder 7 codec to utilize SIMD processor instructions on the AMD Athlon™ XP 2600+ processor. This software patch is not publically available."

To: porn_start878 who wrote (169819)	8/23/2002 12:23:47 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 186894

MAX, Re: "AMD is comparing the Athlon XP to P4 with DDR on their web site" That's what I figured. In this case, they may have an argument to do so. However, in my opinion, the performance numbers should compare the performance of the processors, not the performance of the most common system. If a user can purchase a Pentium 4, and put it in the system that fully utilizes the performance potential, then why benchmark it in a configuration where that potential is constrained? AMD is not in fact comparing against the Pentium 4 CPU, but rather a Pentium 4 system that they consider the "common case". And of course, this opens up a whole bag of worms, since the "common case" could certainly be argued over until the end of time. Should AMD be using the KT333 chipset, even though 80-90% of Athlon systems still aren't using this brand of chipset? That's why CPUs have always traditionally been compared in "best of breed" situations. To deviate from that is AMD's way of "leveling the playing field", and giving themselves an "unfair" advantage. Very similar to what Intel did in SysMark 2002, though I'm sure the zealots will never see it that way. You are astute to bring this up, and I'm grateful for your careful analysis. I simply have some different opinions, and ones that I think carry some credibility. wbmw P.S. Nice to see that AMD finally ditched Andersen Consulting in favor of PricewaterhouseCoopers. <ggg>