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: Scumbria who wrote (73772)	2/16/1999 3:54:00 PM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Please don't answer a different question than the one being asked. Why is it "great" that AMD met its amorphous "MHz goal" but no big deal that Intel was able to achieve 650 MHz? The question I think you were answering is "Why pay for the premium part (Pentium II or III) when the basic part(Celeron) does very nearly as well. That is actually a very good question. Depends on what your aiming for. After looking at Tom's hardware page, I am very tempted to get a high speed Celeron rather than a PII in about 3 weeks. (By the way, take a hard look at Tom's ratings - Celerons rip up the K6-2 - bigtime). I use scanning and graphics enhancement programs a good deal. These are pretty slow functions on my old 90 MHz Pentium so I am looking for the PIII KNI instructions to speed things up - but I would probably be better advised to wait a year for software that fully exploits those instructions. I am leaning towards a 400 or 433 Celeron now (networked with the old P90 now) and then a PIII with onboard cache in about a year to replace the P90. I wouldn't touch the AMD chips with a 10 foot pole (see Toms Hardware Page and you'll figure out why). But I don't think you'll like Tom's page. It has those damn numbers instead of those amorphous goals. By the way, the logical equivalent of your question is why would anyone buy a (take your pick) BMW, Mercedes, etc when you can always buy a Ford Tempo or Chevy Geo. There are markets for both classes of vehicles and almost 5 or 6 categories in between. But I forgot - market segmentation is a bad thing - too bad the car-buying public (everyone) is so stupid. I think that's the essence of your reasoning. Good investing, Burt