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: Scumbria who wrote (91839)2/6/2000 4:34:00 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) of 1576514
 
It requires more work to architect a deep pipe, but the implementation (and thus time to market) tends to be much simpler and faster.

Scumbria, so you are saying that no matter the length of the piping, there are the same number of stages. For example's sake the pipeline for Willamette is 12* feet and for the cumine, its 9* feet. The same # of stages would be used, say three, so you would do 4' in each stage of Willamette and 3'per stage for cumine.

The bottomline would seem to be: the same amount of work (and not < or > work) would result in a much faster chip and presumably more revenue $s. And the chip with the longer pipeline would not be faster to make but would not take longer either, yielding a faster chip at the same production cost.

Obviously I have modified your initial statement substantially but is this what you were hinting at?

ted

*the dimensions used purely for simplicity purposes...even I know no pipeline would be 12'long.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News