SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Petz who wrote (235714)7/5/2007 4:42:24 AM
From: BUGGI-WORead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
@Petz - SPEC
"
and then proved it by giving the link to Intel's Xeon X53XX product page (no 3 GHz). Technically, my statement is actually correct, since the 3 GHz part is still not a part for "the server market," but only for "APPLE." The post just quoted then shows exactly how I investigated the Core 2 Extreme 2.93 GHz part and concluded, by following every retail link on Intel's website, that it also was very hard to find.

So, attributing my statement to "faith" or "articles of faith" makes absolutely no sense, since the reason I stated it was clearly because Intel does not list it as a product on their website in any way, shape or form. And how could "AMD faith" be the basis for any statement about Intel's 3 GHz Clovertown anyway?
"

This argumentation doesn't make sense to me. Why? You are
critisizing Intel for not showing 3G QC official and you
claim that noone beside Apple has these 3G QC modells. On
the other side, not a single Barcelona was shown in action
outside some "hidden" labs and not a single official K10
benchmark beside the "estimated" guess from AMD could be
seen. I'm asking you, whom we should trust more - Intel or
AMD at this point? Its not hard to argue, that an AMD
supporting view now is really really hard to justify.

Show me working K10 Samples with good Mhz, show me real
benches from independent testers or real SPEC numbers, not
estimates and we could talk further.

BUGGI



To: Petz who wrote (235714)7/5/2007 12:41:52 PM
From: rupert1Respond to of 275872
 
OT

The entire chain of comments are clearly meant to mock elements of Petz's profile. And its not the first time. In the past Dougsf made much more explicit references to it. My memory has an "erase junk" feature so I do not recall exactly what the remark was but do remember it was explicit and gratuitous.