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: Ali Chen who wrote (227059)	3/1/2007 2:18:24 AM
From: fastpathguru	Respond to of 275872

The SPEC is designed to be a measure of performance for laymans. It is. According to SPEC, AMD is 50% behind. Get over it. Yet AMD is NOT 50% behind. Your favorite benchmark is inaccurate. (I notice you excluded reference to the specific "base" scores, i.e. the subject of this debate, the lack of which renders your above statement just as inaccurate.) That specX-base scores are a metric is not under debate. The ability of them alone to accurately compare processor performance is. People read SPEC scores, and OEM managers make their decisions. They have made them. Look at the trailing indicator of OEM platform preferences, get your butt to local retail shops. I took a look at local COSTCO recently. AMD presence in desktop was ZERO. Presence in notebooks was surprisingly high - 2 out of 5, 40%. You have proven no causal link between SpecX-base (in particular) and any of these little cases you cite. You could replace "SPEC scores" above with "dougSF30 posts" and be no more inaccurate. That AMD is behind is inarguable. The issue, however, is your apparent need to push base (in particular) scores over any other metric: Message 23328631 You've been given plenty of good reasons why base scores suck as a metric of real-world performance... Anyone relying upon them (alone) for purchasing decisions is an idiot. fpg

To: Ali Chen who wrote (227059)	3/1/2007 7:08:19 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: I took a look at local COSTCO recently. CostCo generally buys semi-closeouts - close to overstock. AMD basically ran out of desktop parts last quarter as it focused on server and mobile (and was capacity constrained). Desktop was also where Intel was bombing prices hardest, and that wasn't the place to direct available production. I've seen a lower presence of desktop parts at some of the more conventional retailers, particularly Circuit City, that agrees with what you posted, but it isn't nearly as drastic a change as what you would conclude from a visit to CostCo. AMD has claimed that this would be their "year of the notebook." It certainly hasn't happened yet, but there have been signs that they're making progress towards that goal. The answer won't be known until we see what's heavy on shelves at the beginning of Q4. We'll see.