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: Dan3 who wrote (169931)	8/24/2002 10:07:12 AM
From: herb will	Respond to of 186894

Dan,"fraudulent acts". Gee whizz, Dan, if Bapco gets sued AMD is now a member. But I also wonder if AMD is digging a hole for themselves with this nitpicking. After all other companies are involved that may not appreciate these childlike tirades. Herb

To: Dan3 who wrote (169931)	8/24/2002 10:43:08 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, re: AMD never committed any fraudulent acts. They used modelhurtz numbers to deceive unsophisticated consumers into thinking they were buying a higher clock speed computer. There must be at least a couple of hundred thousand consumers who thought, when they bought a 1800+ (or whatever) AMD computer, that they were buying one that ran at 1800 MHz. And probably 10 times that many who would claim that they did. I'm not defending the consortium. In fact I think that almost every benchmark is rigged to a certain degree. The industry needs a new way to measure system performance, if they truly care about the end user. All this component benchmarking crap is smoke, it's the combination of components that make a significant difference in performance. Going from 128MB to 256MB of RAM probably makes more real world difference than 300 MHz in clock speed, who are you gonna sue over that? On the plaintiff side, I would rather be going up against AMD than the BAPCo. John