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 (170084)	8/26/2002 10:14:24 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 186894

Dan, Lets compare Intel's actions v. AMD's. Intel was a part of a consortium that set benchmarks based on criteria that happened to favor Intel processors. A surprise? -AMD independently established a vague and proprietary modelhurtz scheme that implied that their processors ran at a higher clock speed. (Did AMD use benchmarks that favored Intel when they invented modelhurtz?) The BAPCo benchmarks sometimes are used by obscure websites that are visited by enthusiasts, probably less than 1/10 of 1% of end users. -AMD prominently displayed their deceptive model numbers in their advertising, literature and on their packaging. How many Intel purchasers based their decision on BAPCo benchmarks? -Virtually every AMD purchaser based their decision on AMD's fantasy model numbers. You can bet that if that suit against Intel appears to have any chance of success, some law firm will not have a hard time finding plenty of plaintiffs against AMD. And AMD can't afford to defend itself, much less settle a class action. What if AMD were ordered to stop using modelhurtz, and refund the estimated difference in the processor price from the fantasy MHz and the real MHz, to all those unwitting consumers? John