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: wanna_bmw who wrote (172966)	2/10/2003 1:54:41 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Respond to of 186894

From theinquirer: Intel hits back at AMD desktop performance claims Tweedledum and Tweedledee engage in CPU battle By Mike Magee: Monday 10 February 2003, 11:10 CHIP GIANT INTEL reacted swiftly to the release of a Barton 3000+ processor from AMD today and said vendor claims should not be used to decide the performance of a chip. We'll remember that when you launch your 3.20GHz Pentium 4, Intel. Earlier today, we reported that AMD had claimed its Barton 3000+, which has a clock frequency of 2.17GHz, using a set of "industry standard" benchmarks, meant that it outperformed its competition by 17 per cent. But Intel hit back today, claiming its 3.06GHz Pentium 4, which uses hyperthreading technology, remains the world's highest performance desktop processor. AMD uses PR ratings, based on a suite of software, originally based on an earlier Athlon processor, which presumably is still the base mark for these "+" figures. Intel bases its own claims to the performance crown by saying a variety of benchmarks including SPECint_base 2000 and SPECfp_base 2000 proved that. Further, said an Intel representative, hyperthreading provides "up to 25% higher performance in some cases" for multitasking and multithreaded usage models. What's really puzzling to us is that on roadmaps the INQUIRER saw last week, AMD appeared to have downed the frequency of a Barton 3000+ from 2.25GHz to 2.17GHz and claimed this was a plus. We have asked AMD to comment on the reason for this statement but so far we haven't had a reply from the company. And so the chip wars continue... µ