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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (170775)	9/8/2002 12:37:01 AM
From: Stoctrash	Respond to of 186894

Tech-buddy!!...how's it hanging? No don't believe me ..but I suggest you & all the go-go INTC-Heads read up on what this guy is saying about the big picture: pimco.com If you don't know who he is....shame on you and listen up, his track record knocks even my dick in the dirt :-) He happens to run the largest bond fund in the world, kinda like the Peter Lynch of the big picture and bonds. Here is a sample: "My message is as follows: stocks stink and will continue to do so until they're priced appropriately, probably somewhere around Dow 5,000, S&P 650, or NASDAQ God knows where. Now I guess I'm on somewhat of a rant here but come on people get a hold of yourselves. Earnings have been phonied up for years and the market still sells at high multiples of phony earnings. Dividends and dividend increases have been miserly to say the least for several decades now and you've been hoodwinked into believing the CORPORATION should hold on to them for you so that they can convert them into capital gains and save you taxes. Companies have been diluting your equity via stock options claiming that management needs incentives of millions of dollars just to get up in the morning and come in to work. Then they pick you off by trading on insider information, selling shares before the bad news hits and you have a chance to get out. If you try to get a hot IPO you find all the shares are taken - by Bernie Ebbers. Come on stockholders of America, are you naïve, stupid, masochistic, or better yet, in this for the "long run?" Ah, that's it, you own stocks for the "long run." We bond managers may have had a few good relative years but who can deny Stocks for the Long Run? Not Jeremy Siegel, not Peter Lynch, maybe not even Bill Gross if you stretch the time period long enough - 20, 30, 40 years. But short of that, stocks can be, and often have been poor investments. The return on them depends

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (170775)	9/8/2002 12:51:22 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Any benchmark Intel wins is "hijacked" by Intel. I'm afraid that's pretty much true, because of the performance problems of P4's too-long pipeline and limited number of execution units. Check out the benchmarks that weren't written for P4 - start with Sysmark 2000. Why is it that, for the vast majority of benchmarks, unless the benchmark was coded specifically for P4, P4 does poorly on it? Are you familiar with the concept of a double-blind experiment? What it says, essentially, is that any benchmark created by testing it on the target chip is suspect. Real world software isn't written in order to make P4 look good, it's written to accomplish a task. The bizarre changes Intel has pressured/bribed/threatened such groups as BAPCO and SPEC into making in order to make P4 look good are telling. SPEC mandates old, inefficient algorithms be used, but allows companies that can write their own compilers to substiture other algorithms if the compiler does it as an "optimization." This is the kind of joke Intel has turned SPEC into. Intel SPEC scores don't reflect SPEC, they report the time it takes to run a very different application that was substituted by the "optimizing" compiler. BAPCO virtually eliminated office applications from their productivity "office" applications benchmark and substituted media encoding apps in order to cover up P4's utter unsuitability as a corporate application processor. And then BAPCO tried very hard to hide what they'd done, refusing to reveal what their benchmarks were actually doing. Compare that to ScienceMark sciencemark.org which clearly documents how the benchmarks work, how the scoring works, and offers up the source code for anyone to evaluate and, if need be, criticize. GMP isn't a benchmark, it's a set of programs, optimzed for P4, Athlon, and other chips. It's a great example of software written to do work rather than "score" anything. It happens to be possible to run it as a benchmark. GMP is a free library for arbitrary precision arithmetic, operating on signed integers, rational numbers, and floating point numbers. There is no limit to the precision except the ones implied by the available memory in the machine GMP runs on. GMP has a rich set of functions, and the functions have a regular interface. The main target applications for GMP are cryptography applications and reseach, Internet security applications, algebra systems, computational algebra reseach, etc. GMP is carefully designed to be as fast as possible, both for small operands and for huge operands. The speed is achieved by using fullwords as the basic arithmetic type, by using fast algorithms, with highly optimized assembly code for the most common inner loops for a lot of CPUs, and by a general emphasis on speed (instead of simplicity or elegance). GMP is faster than any other similar library. The advantage for GMP increases with the operand sizes for certain operations, since GMP in many cases has asymptotically faster algorithms. The first GMP release was made in 1991. It is continually developed and maintained, with new releases a few times per year. swox.com Now check out the scores: swox.com