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: greg nus who wrote (50706)	2/23/1999 5:20:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572689

<now for tom's review what missing in his presentation is the system tested cost. do you beleive it is a fair comparison to test a system that cost $1,000.oo against one that cost $2,500.00.> Greg, how much "fairer" does Tom's test have to be? Everything was the same, except for the CPU, motherboard, and the 3DNow-optimized drivers for the K6-2. We're comparing the K6-2 to the Celeron, not the Pentium II. Last time I checked, a Celeron 366 is cheaper than a K6-2 400, but runs just about everything faster (except Quake 2 on Voodoo2). Systems built around a Celeron 366 are going to be, on the average, cheaper than systems built around a K6-2 400. This is the problem that AMD has at the moment, that their K6-2 is in danger of being completely crushed by Celeron's prices and performance. The K6-III is no longer just a "gee-whiz-cool" thing, it's become AMD's only means of profitability until K7. Tenchusatsu P.S. - Scumbria, no need to comment.