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: Road Walker who wrote (169934)	8/24/2002 11:15:58 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

A couple of letters from the Inquirer that may prove mildly amusing: Letter One – Sauce for the Goose Dear Mr. Magee First off, ... ...I read with interest your story on AMD's complaints with regard to Sysmark 2002, and followed the link to AMD's internal presentation. I was unconvinced by AMD's complaints. Intel could use their same logic to claim that the earlier benchmark (Sysmark 2001) was systematically biased in favor of the Athlon by focusing on tasks which the Athlon does well. It seems to me that AMD is crying mainly because the rules are no longer tilted in AMD's favor. Why should we take this self-interested whining seriously? As the dominant microprocessor supplier, Intel defines the industry. It is therefore appropriate that common benchmarks should be designed with reference to the most common technology platform. Is it really reasonable for AMD to ask that benchmarks should be designed for its convenience? To be the king, you must kill the king. If AMD really wants people to believe its claims to "industry leading performance," it should demonstrate a processor which can beat Intel at the things Intel does best. Will Slaughter Email address supplied --------------------------------------------------------- Letter Two – ... Hey, Van Sh*thead has his phony COSBI benchmarks that select AMD-only tests that favour AMD. Why don't you write an expose on this? Paul R. Engel Email address supplied

To: Road Walker who wrote (169934)	8/24/2002 12:28:39 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: They used modelhurtz numbers to deceive unsophisticated consumers That's complete nonsense, and you know it, the actual, if irrelevant, mhz was apparent in every piece of material distributed by the company. Should they have reported the voltage for each processor as a headline item? The max operating temperature? How about amperage? What Intel did was intentionally deceive consumers by misrepresenting the performance of their chips, and those of their competitors. How about if AMD creates a shell "independent consortium" that claims to produce reliability analyses of systems and the they conclude, and reports, and widely disseminates analysis results demonstrating that Intel chips are 50 times as likely to corrupt data as AMD chips? Is that OK? Given the history of FDIV, 1.13ghz PIII, MTH, etc. it's certainly true, and probably an understatement. An independent consortium has found that Intel chips are more than 50 times as likely to corrupt data as AMD chips. Would you be OK with that? Especially if the consortium wasn't really independent, but was hiding that fact?