David Mitchell, Intel's marketing chief in the UK, in which the latter works up the position on the AMD's attempt to build an alternative to Megahertz measurement.
It boils down to this: there are so many things that affect a PC's performance that clock speed is the only thing that is really accurate.
Here is Mitchell's argument in full:
"I think megahertz and gigahertz are really the only way of accurately assessing what you're buying, because it's a clear measure in terms of processor performance and it clearly states to the consumer what they're getting for their money. I don't think the chip architectures are that different. I think whatever you do with your processor the clock speed is still one of the defining measurements of chip performance, and once you put the chip into a PC, there are so many other factors that can affect the performance of the system, that coming back to gigahertz as being the key measurement is key. If you look at where we're going over the next year, we're going to be announcing faster chip speeds. We think that the core of the Pentium four processor as it is today, could scale up to ten gigahertz over the next five to ten years."
I like his circular argument. Also, shouldn't Intel reach ~10GHz within 3 years, or so?
This has been posted before, but we all responded the same thing: INTEL FUD.
Clearly when he changes the subject, it shows he can't answer directly to AMD's better opinion.
I dunno who here has ever agreed with Intel's marketting department. Plus I beleive that when AMD speaks out (not Jerry Sanders) its opinions, whether marketting chief or personal worker, they always stick to real facts, which almost everyone here thinks the same and agree much more than any of Intel's FUD.
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!