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: Harold Engstrom who wrote (170132)	8/27/2002 9:22:57 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: surprising results (to me.) Ideally, test the actual code you'll be running. That's usually a lot of work, and can be expensive. One of the reasons I sometimes go ballistic on these boards, is that on the handful of test we've had the chance to run we've found that the performance of the P4 is being grossly overrated, just about everywhere, by just about everyone. And this misrepresentation of the P4's performance has led to a millions of very bad purchase decisions. It's a big swindle, on the level of Enron in total dollars, but since each case (each CPU sale) amounts to only a few hundred dollars, it gets ignored. I buy, or have built, workstations and servers. The most recent servers I've speced have had large storage capacity and computation requirements, but low transaction requirements (a handful of researchers hammering on very large tabular and spatial data sets). Most recently, I've been specing systems with Antec's 1480 case (with redundant PS), dual Athlon MP 2000+ chips, Asus's A7M266-D motherboard, 2-gig or 3-gig of RAM, 3Ware's Escalade RAID controller, and 9 WD 80gig 7200 RPM drives with 8meg cache. That leaves me with a cold spare, a hot spare, and 560 gig of available RAID protected storage. These systems go for $4,500 to $5,000, depending on memory. They're cheap enough to just buy a spare system, test it, and leave it in the box. A slower (in CPU) Dell, with half the storage, is $15,000. I have these systems built by a local VAR. For a transaction oriented system (which haven't been the most recent procurements), I've been specing similar boxes, but with the Adaptec 3200S SCSI RAID controller and Seagate 10K or 15K drives, which triples the cost of the disk, and doubles the cost of the server.

To: Harold Engstrom who wrote (170132)	8/27/2002 12:06:37 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 186894

Harold, although I try not to resort to badmouthing people on the forums, I fear you may be getting some bad advice from a member called Dan3. You should be aware that this individual has a constant ability to fabricate lies to put Intel down to people who visit the forums. He has been reprimanded many times in the past by other forum members, but he seems insistent in continuing his fanatical approach to evangelizing alternatives to the Intel platform. He's sort of like those die-hard Mac fanatics who will do everything to badmouth the PC. Here is an example of what I'm talking about. Please note that many others have seen similar behavior. Message 17914385 Can you really trust the word of someone who believes that Intel is sending Anthrax through the mail system?? Also, his link that he gave you is very outdated, no doubt to underscore the difference between the older Intel and AMD platforms. Here is a newer link from the same reviewer. Any objective person can easily see that Intel's competitive performance has improved greatly with newer products. anandtech.com That is not to say that AMD shouldn't be an option for you. Just that you should be able to weigh the most current facts for yourself, and not just the B.S. from one fanatic. Just my humble opinion. wbmw