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: Charles R who wrote (113202)5/29/2000 12:08:00 PM
From: Dan3  Read Replies (3) of 1573433
 
Re: I would be surprised to see a launch past 1.2 in June. Regardless of the speed bin distribution, there is simply no reason for AMD to push speed grades at this point - Intel has just gotten to 933 so why bother?

Good point - and here's a blast from the past setting up a similar situation:
Message 10773951
"for the first time AMD builds a faster cpu than the market leader. With a clock rate of 600 MHz athlon leaves all pIII‘s behind"

Of course, in the actual event, "K7" was released at 650MHZ. Although 1.1 or 1.2GHZ keeps AMD solidly in the lead, it may not be enough to grab a big piece of the mono-processor server and workstation markets away from Intel. This is the market AMD now needs to grow into.

Database, engineering, and applications server software is often licensed on a per processor basis, at prices that can be several thousand dollars per processor per year. It's a conservative market, but one where a processor fast enough to run uniprocessor instead of dual processor pays for itself in a matter of months. A difference in performance that large would guarantee AMD a solid presence in those markets.

Immediate availability of a 1.4 or 1.5GHZ system would also disperse the cloud of anxiety brought on by the pre-announcement of Willamette at those speeds. Another thing: Does Intel usually make such clear pre-announcements of future clock speed availability? Could it be that Intel knew such an announcement was coming from AMD and tried to lessen its impact?

So there is some justification for leapfrogging Intel instead of nosing them out.

By the way, have you noticed the substantial downside that will be faced by AMD investors if there is a 1.4 or 1.5GHZ announcement? Within weeks of shouldering the burden of approving one 3 for 1 stock split, we'll be faced with the aggravation of approving another one!

Regards,

Dan
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