SI
SI
discoversearch

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

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Cirruslvr who wrote (86257)1/10/2000 12:33:00 AM
From: Process Boy  Read Replies (2) of 1572409
 
Cirrus - <If Geyserville processors have held up production of desktop processors I think Intel didn't make a right decision when allocating Q4 production. But I'm using hindsight. Who knows what Intel forecasted for Q4...>

Cirrus, the same parts are used for the PIII mobiles available now. I wouldn't use the term "held up".

<Hmm, Geyserville was DELAYED from '99 to 2000. If these processors require their own "stuff" and introduction was pushed back, there is a possibility initial production didn't turn out well and valuable wafers/processors had to be thrown away. Oops, there went the extra PIII 450/500s Intel could have sold to Gateway.>

Cirrus, it didn't work and doesn't work that way. The processors had nothing to do with the one quarter delay of Geyserville. And I cannot see how PIII mobiles impacted the GTW issue at all. They are an entirely separate class of parts, run in entirely different fabs at the moment.

<AMD is supposed to have their own version of Geyserville, but it isn't supposed to be as advanced. Changes are made in BIOS. But future mobile chips are supposed to be able to change within Windows, or so that one article says.>

I have heard this. Waiting for detail. On Geyserville, the wait is just about over.

PB





Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext