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: Petz who wrote (235717)	7/5/2007 11:01:41 AM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: I am not "criticizing" Intel for not showing 3G QC official, I am merely stating that since Intel does not show it as an orderable product, it is not an orderable product. These are FACTS and have nothing to do with FAITH. That's because the X5365 today is nothing more than a specialty product, much like the Opteron SE was when it first launched, and Sun was the only one carrying it. Besides, I think most people have come to realize at this point that Intel bins very poorly at 3.0GHz quad core with their B-x stepping, which is what the current X5365 and QX6800 parts are made from. With the G-0 stepping, Intel will not only increase volumes, but also lowers power dissipation to 130W for Xeon and 120W for Core 2 Extreme. Both parts are expected to ship in August, in time for Barcelona. Of course, while Barcelona has not been shown publicly in any non-broken form that's greater than 1.8GHz, Intel has at least lifted NDA on their G-0 stepping parts. Just look up any of the E6750 reviews that popped up a few weeks ago. They are all G-0 stepping parts, they perform well, and they come with reduced power consumption (note that some reviews that test with the Asus P5K noted higher power dissipation, but this was later found to be a board issue). Re: First, I do not think AMD intentionally misled investors with the "2.6 GHz estimates." Do you realize that RIGHT NOW, Apple still only shows ESTIMATED SPECint_rate_base2000 and SPECfp_rate_base2000 on their website! Estimated, not actual. Petz, any argument that attempts to justify AMD being misleading by pointing to Intel (or Apple in this case) being misleading is fundamentally flawed. AMD has scores posted on their website for a 2.6GHz projection that isn't even on their roadmap, much less an actual product. Second, keep in mind that in SPEC parlance, "estimated" is different than "projection". Apple's scores have been run on actual systems, but they are "estimates" until they have been posted officially on SPEC's website. There may be a good reason why this has yet to happen, or maybe it's a gross oversight, I don't know.... But either way, they are real scores, and the systems have been shipping for months. Comparing this to AMD's tactic is quite a stretch of the imagination. Re: Now, when Apple published that web page, I am sure they had run SPEC2000 and those are the numbers. But it might have been a while before anyone could actually order a 3 GHz MacPRO with the speed and amount of memory that was used in that benchmark result. Since they did not want to guarantee that number and do an actual SPEC submission, they just call it an estimate. When you publish a SPEC submission, the hardware MUST be available in 3 months. Apple couldn't guarantee that, so they just put an estimate on their webpage. Wrong, Petz. Apple has been shipping these for months. People have bought them legitimately off of Apple's website and commented on them in multiple forums. Re: Clearly, something went wrong so that the Barcelona chip cannot run at 2.6 GHz reliably, only 2 GHz. I don't think anyone should doubt that AMD will get to 2.6GHz eventually. The big question is when? I don't think AMD should be comparing Barcelona against Xeon until they at least have a solid date for when these chips come out, do you...? It would be like Intel comparing 3.6GHz Penryn projections. It would be silly, since Intel's 20% performance improvement at 45nm is only supposed to reach this high by late next year. Today, based on the current known information, 2.6GHz is a stretch for AMD, and not likely to be seen until well into next year, assuming they get back on track in terms of clock speeds. Therefore, AMD has no justification for putting it in a performance comparison vs. Xeon today. It's simply deceptive and misrepresentative, on any level you choose to consider it.