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: richanfamus who wrote (170591)	9/5/2002 1:08:29 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

rich, Re: "Next week at the Intel Developer Forum, the company will announce 2.8GHz and 2.6GHz Xeons for single- and dual-processor workstations and servers and reveal more details on chips coming in the near future... Currently, its fastest Xeon chip for single- and dual-processor workstations and servers runs at 2.4GHz." That's a nice 400MHz jump. It's also good to see that the 2.8GHz supply is healthy enough to afford a server version so close to the desktop launch. That says a lot about the strength of the process right now. A 3.06GHz launch in the next couple months is looking very good now. wbmw

To: richanfamus who wrote (170591)	9/5/2002 9:11:38 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 186894

Re: Intel revs workstation, server chips The 2.4 Xeon is selling for $650, while the Athlon MP 2000+ (which is a faster chip, at least for the applications we run) sells for $170 (both, boxed w/fan & 3 year warranty). We save $1,000, per box, and get the same, or better performance. I should add that when we last tested our applications, it was Palomino Athlon vs. Willamette P4 (the P4 had RDRAM 800) and we saw about 50% more performance - per clock - from the Athlon. Our tests include running the applications we've developed, in house, over a number of years. That would make a 2000+ equal to a P4 2.5. But if that Xeon is running a 533FSB, it's probably as fast as an Athlon 2000+. But why flush $1,000 down the tubes just so you can have a chip with a name that starts with X instead of A? Edit - I see that the Xeon is still running the old 100x4 bus, so it's going to be slower than the Athlon, and only $960 more expensive, per pair!