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 (169836)	8/23/2002 12:21:42 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

wbmw, The former benchmarks DirectX 7, which no one uses any longer. DirectX 8, and soon DirectX 9 will be the gaming platforms that all developers use. Would you care to quantify this, meaning how many games have been released so far that use Direct 7, 8 and 9? We know that the count for DirectX 9 is 0. In reality, most Window games out there were written for versions of DirectX below version 7. Joe

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (169836)	8/23/2002 1:05:06 PM
From: porn_start878	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re. wanna_bmw two replies in one : First, as for the use of DDR, you say we are interested in the full potential of the CPU. I'm not sure. We use benchmarks to see how systems do in particular contexts, some real world, some synthetic. We use it because there are so much factors to determine the power of a system that no current metric successfully inform us on wich is the one to choose. Most people won't really read details about system configuration, they'll assume that what they see is what they'll get in Best Buy. Following your reasonning, we should in fact use the dual channel DDR board that Intel devellopped but we don't since its not really available. Unless what reviewers are presenting us is the future of the platform, or the "potential" you're talking about. But another strong argument is that Intel abandonned RDRAM and is phasing it out. So it doesn't really inform us on what performance will be since it's not the future. as for KT333, you know as well as me that assynchroneous designs doesn't help performance much... it's wasted bandwidth. Second : I don't know how honnest you are when you say that you think those benches you skipped weren't interesting, but what I read in your post is a selection of benchmarks that, with 2 exceptions, have all in common that they favor P4 over Athlon so it makes me wonder what does really interest you? finding the truth or proving you point that QS rating is too high. I think the fact that AMD changed his formula is already a step in the right direction, and with larger cache and faster bus speed in the pipeline, they'll have even more occasions to keep the rating accurate. Hammer will simplify it even more since it will have SSE2, so you won't have highly optimised program doing surprising "peaks" in the performance data.