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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brian Hutcheson who wrote (39665)	10/20/1998 1:02:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1578921

<Ten , sure , sure , the Celeron 266 is better than the Pentium 233 because it is slower than it . That is quite a piece of logic .> No, it's an answer to your argument given below: <The Celeron 266mhz was slower than a K6-200 that is sufficient proof that most of the "high performance" of the PII comes from the L2 cache on the daughter board since that is the only real diffference ,> You were arguing that the K6 is a better core than the P6, and this was one of your supporting arguments. But if you extended this same argument to a comparison between the P6 (Celeron) and Pentium, you'll come to the conclusion that the Pentium has a better core than the P6. Wow! What a revelation! A two-issue in-order processor core is more advanced than a three-issue out-of-order processor core! Tenchusatsu P.S. - Let's just admit that the whole performance picture is too complicated to allow for a comparison between processors with disabled caches.