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 (235732)	7/5/2007 12:51:17 PM
From: BUGGI-WO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

@Petz - 5365 I don't know, what you want to show us or to yourself? It seems strange, that you can't recognize, that Apple is shipping these products - is that so hard to understand. Its the same thing, which AMD earlier did too, like WBMW stated already. At past times, you could find Opterons in SUN boxes, which were not launched. Look at the latest Notebook CPUs from AMD. HP showed modells and AMD hasn't officially announced this product. For me, these SPEC_rate discussions go way too far at this point. It has to be seen, what IPC performance AMD could deliver with final K10 CPUs and it has to be seen too, what MHz they could reach in the first stage and the coming months. It should be clear, that estimated 2,6G K10 benchmarks look a bit strange these days, especially when you take into account, that AMD wants to announce this product in the very near time. As many already pointed out, when AMD is able to ship some stuff, Intel has released 5365 officially and you could buy it from other retaillers beside Apple too. I wouldn't be surprised, if Intel is planning that launch before AMD has its own PR, but also this isn't that important. I'm "keen" on what AMD could deliver, not at what Intel could not deliver and the first one looks disappointing in the last months and this phrase is an understatement. BUGGI

To: Petz who wrote (235732)	7/5/2007 1:16:05 PM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Not for over three months? X5365 today? Still no such luck. What are they estimating now? September? Petz, are you in uber denial mode right now? You can buy it here: store.apple.com So what if it's not on Intel's website...? Like I said, it's a specialty product that Intel is selling only to Apple. You can buy one today, isn't that enough to prove it exists? I know... when AMD launched the Opteron SE, they had it on their price list, even though they were only selling to Sun. Intel hasn't put it on their price list, and they aren't mentioning it on their website. But it's for sale on Apple's website, and people have been buying them and talking about it. Now, in terms of the higher volume X5365 launch, I would agree that September seems a safe bet. You might even see it sooner, and I'm willing to bet it will be available in systems before Barcelona. Re: Nothing fundamentally flawed at all in my logic. I showed that it is standard industry practice to list unsubmitted SPEC results as "projections," whether or not the hardware is available. You're confused once again between the term "projection" and the term "estimate". And it's certainly not an industry standard practice to compare your competitor's available products against a product that you don't even have on the roadmap. Give AMD the memo, Petz. Re: Maybe you should take a look at SPEC.org and notice that there are still SPEC results for 1.13 GHz Pentium III's, which NEVER became products. Actually, there WAS a 1.13GHz Pentium III product using the Tualatin core. I don't know whether the SPEC submission you mention is using the Tualatin result, or an older one from the recalled Coppermine chip (and I can't check right now, since the spec.org site seems to be down at the moment), but either way it's besides the point. It still doesn't justify AMD's behavior for you to constantly bring up cases involving Intel. Whether or not Intel's behavior was questionable in the past is not relevant to the situation today, nor is it a justification to let product benchmark misrepresentation to be permissible. And you still have yet to address how AMD can justify a comparison on their website of a projection of a product that isn't set to ship this year, against products from Intel that are already available today. Re: By ANYONE's definition, FAITH has absolutely nothing to do with it. You're beating a dead horse, Petz. I don't care what you call it. And since I only have one more post for the day, I'm unlikely to waste it debating against your evasional arguing tactics.