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: Elmer Phud who wrote (252885)	6/5/2008 3:51:52 PM
From: BUGGI-WO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

[edited] @Elmer - 3/4 Cycles I don't know why this is worth discussing? For me, the ONLY!!! interesting measure is speed. How Intel is able to reach this is (beneath academic discussion) another topic, a topic not for me. I would guess, this is the fact for over 90% of "CPU-geeks" too, which represent way below 1% of all buyers and the other 99+% mostly don't know what an "CPU" is. Message: 3 or 4 cycles - who cares, I'm will trust that they will do the best for them and for the product. I really don't know what MAS wants to show? It seems very frustrating to be an AMD fanboy these days - I could understand this. ;-))) edit: fact is, Pre Nehalem is already 30% IPC-wise over Penryn, which means that Nehalem is around 40-50% faster compared to current K10 clock for clock. I assume, that with more memory channels, a better chipset and a good FINAL board, Nehalem will show 35-40% IPC gains over Penryn on average. This will bring Nehalem around 50-60% in front of K10 clock for clock. Imagine an 3/3,2G Nehalem -> means AMD will need an Quad K10 5G. Looks like Intel makes K10 a new Sempron product. BUGGI