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: dougSF30 who wrote (201413)	6/9/2006 3:10:50 PM
From: gzubeck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Signs of desperation for Intel...;>))))))

To: dougSF30 who wrote (201413)	6/9/2006 9:10:32 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Doug: So many falsehoods, Intel must be desperate. Their own AMB datasheet states active power is 6.9W at 50% BW for PC2-4200, not 6.1W. The PLL and register on DDR takes less than 1W per Micron's datasheet for DDR2-400 to DDR2-800. Then they tell you about the performance is compared against DDR2-400 (3x) while the competition at the same time can go to DDR2-800 and up. Then there is the 4x capacity which is wrong since registered DDR2-400 can have 4 DIMMs per channel with the same capacity. Comparing 4 channel to one for capacity is just plain misleading. 4 channels of DDR2 have just as much capacity and more performance. Then they tell you that their new Xeon has 3 times the performance than their current Xeon yet forget to mention that the upper one is a NGA dual core that is compared to a Prescott single core. That the system comparisons are with 4 FBDIMMs against 4 DDR-400s. But not with Xeon 5000s but, unreleased 5100s. And you can get 4 way 3GHz Opterons, but they don't want to compare because they would lose most of those benchmarks shown. Why don't they show the terrible performance per watt of their current Xeon 5000s? Oh yeah, wait, wait, wait, they'd lose those too. They didn't refute AMD's claims, because they wanted to change what was measured. They don't make it when 16 FBDIMMs are used. They don't even make it with 8 FBDIMMs. Against DDR-400 no less. By the time real hardware shows up, they would be competing against socket F (1207) Opterons which likely will be faster with higher bandwidth, lower power and higher performance. And btw, Opteron x90s are out. They are 2.8GHz dual core. Here is a 8 way server with up to 8 Opteron 890s: american-computer.com So Intel is comparing high volume servers to vaporware servers. Their claims are so much vapor too. They don't want to use real world stuff. They know they would lose. Pete