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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug M. who wrote (67321)	10/25/1998 3:17:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<Anyway, I just read the K7 review by Tom Pabst. Why is that guy so pro AMD. I don't know enough about him yet. I read his bio (a while ago)and that didn't tell me much from what I remember. He's really going out on a limb with some incredible assumptions isn't he?> Tom is up and down with regard to his views on Intel. Several months before the Klamath release, a.k.a. Pentium II, Tom posted a scathing preview of the new processor, criticizing it for it's new and proprietary Slot 1 design. In that same article, he said, AMD's K6 will be a screamer CPU. This CPU - believe it or not - will still fit into a Socket 7!!! The performance of the K6 is higher than the performance of the Pentium II (Klamath) at the same clock speed. Needless to say, this review created tensions between Tom and some people at Intel. But later on, these tensions were resolved, and Tom became more of an Intel apologist. Tom even went as far as to defend the unpopular Covington (cacheless Celeron) because of its overclockability. It's also pretty interesting to see how Tom's own benchmarks disproved his earlier prediction that the K6 is faster than Pentium II at the same clock speeds. But now that Tom had a chance to see the AMD K7 presentation first-hand at the Microprocessor Forum, he is once again declaring this the "next" Intel-killer. And once again, he's making these assumptions well before he has the chance to run any benchmarks on the K7. I'll take Tom's own benchmarking at face value, but I'll also take his opinions with a grain of salt. Tenchusatsu

To: Doug M. who wrote (67321)	10/25/1998 11:41:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Doug - Re: "Tom Pabst. Why is that guy so pro AMD. " I can't answer that except to speculate that his "background" may disposition himself to being accustomed to receiving everything for free - instead of the prices Intel charges for its processors. This Tom Uberclockermeister Pabst first gained notoriety in early 1997 when he illegally obtained an early engineering sample of Klamath (the 0.35 micron Pentium II) and an early Intel motherboard. He performed a suite of tests on the illegally obtained engineering sample and published the data and just CROWED over the marginal performance. Only when the REAL, PRODUCTIOn Pentium II came out, he repeated his tests and had to re-cant his prior data and ADMIT THAT IT WAS OBTAINED ON ILLEGALLY GOTTEN ENGINEERING SAMPLES. Tom didn't take to EATING CROW too well. Then he made a claim that Intel was trying to stifle advertising on his web site or something, another claim that was unsuported by fact. In the end, the Uberclockermeister had to re-publish Pentium II data and admitted the performance was EXCELLENT. Ever since that time, he has been reaching for the the next ABI CPU (ABI = Anything But Intel) and hoping to find a gem that will outshine Intel's best performance. In almost two years, he has not been able to do this. By the way, Tom Pabst's TIES TO AMD are quite clear - AMD PROVIDED COPIES OF THEIR Microprocessor Design Forum K7 SLIDES for Uberclockermesiter to put up on his Web Site. So, Pabst has become nothing more than a Schill for AMD. Paul

To: Doug M. who wrote (67321)	10/26/1998 7:11:00 PM
From: Badger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I used to be a regular at Toms' site, but it's really gone downhill in the last six months, IMHO. He posts one or two new articles a month and doesn't bother updating the old ones. For example, he used to be the first stop for overclocking info but he hasn't adding anything new there for almost a year. This latest article on AMD is obviously pulled from a marketing brochure, which convinces me further that he's just gotten lazy. I'm not going to just visit a page that spouts the corporate line, be it AMD's or Intel's. I like good, objective, insightful, independent analysis. If anyone has a good resource for hardware info (besides the various chat threads), please let me know. For now, tho, I'm going to remove Tom's Hardware from my bookmarks. Best, Badger