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: pgerassi who wrote (254805)	7/25/2008 10:13:17 AM
From: eracer	Respond to of 275872

Re: Those benches were contrived by Anand. He is a big Intel backer as you can see the link there on nearly every page. I can do that too: Your calculations and conclusions were contrived. You are a big AMD backer as we can see in nearly every post. No real single threaded tasks. No games... ...Given that, there is a definite feeling these were selected because the results were quite favorable. Any unfavorable ones were bypassed. Why would anyone want to buy a quad-core hyperthreaded processor for single-threaded apps? If it makes you feel better you could expect Nehalem to "only" perform about as well as Yorkfield in those tasks. That level of performance is already good enough to keep AMD from being able to sell a $250 desktop quad-core processor today. Anand seems to think that wall increase equals processor increase which isn't true at all. The article clearly states system power consumption, not CPU power consumption. Of course that would cast a negative light on Barcelona power consumption, so you would rather lie about what the Anandtech article said in order to discredit Anandtech. You just continue to discredit yourself. That would push the 95W TDP of a 2.66GHz Penryn based QC to 130W to 140W TDP for Nehalem. Which puts it in the same range of a Barcelona based 2.6GHz Phenom X4 9950BE. The Nehalem TDP has already been widely reported to be 130W. The 3GHz QX9650 also has a TDP of 130W, yet was often seen to have far lower power consumption than AMD's 125+W Phenoms in reviews. Will history repeat itself? As to pricing, while there may be some cuts, I don't think we will see 3.2GHz C2Qs going for less than $286 I wouldn't expect it either. Some price overlap would be expected. The 3.73GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition didn't drop to $2xx overnight at the Core 2 Duo launch.