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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: eracer who wrote (151537)	2/23/2005 1:23:14 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I didn't figure anyone believed a ~1.6GHz dual core 90-nm K8 CPU would be a credible response to ~2.3GHz 65-nm Yonah. Well if you're going to make up arbitrarily low clock speed numbers for a dual-core Turion, why not go with 400MHz? It would still run 64-bit code faster than Yonah. Who'd a thunk that AMD could be performance competitive with Intel despite being a process generation behind... oh, wait

To: eracer who wrote (151537)	2/23/2005 2:05:48 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Yonah will be fine at Winstone and Linux compilations, but it just is not a good overall CPU, as Anand's recent expose` made clear. 533 FSB is 3 steps back in memory+I/O bandwidth, expecially for a dual-core CPU. Take a looksee: anandtech.com and surrounding pages. Other than Winbench, there are very few applications where Pentium M outperforms its big-brother Pentium 4. Take a look at the next page and you'll find that an equally clocked Athlon 64 outperforms Pentium M in 4 out of 6 categories of applications and ties in the other 2. from conclusion: Think of it like this - the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 are clearly the stronger chips of the three, as we have proved in today's review. However, in the mobile world, the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 are often castrated or limited either by low clock speeds, single channel memory controllers or more physical constraints (e.g. you can get desktop P4 performance, but only in a 13lbs notebook). The Pentium M however, was designed from the ground up with these types of constraints in mind, and thus, excels quite well with them in place. Begin to remove the constraints and the Pentium M appears to be much less impressive compared to the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 because the chip was designed to perform best with those constraints in place. Petz