Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ali Chen who wrote (26283)	12/1/1997 3:34:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) of 1572776

Ali, you are right about overall CPU architecture being as important, and maybe more so, than CMOS gate design. The differences between AMD and Intel performance are primarily the result of design tradeoffs, not superior/inferior technology. AMD opted for a lower latency and slower clock speed, Intel opted for higher latency and faster clock speed. AMD used a larger cache and top level architectural improvements to overcome the lower clock speed. AMD used several technologies to try and minimize die size, but at the expense of greater manufacturing difficulty. In retrospect, these decisions were wrong for the 0.35 process (yield problem), but who's to say that Intel will not have difficulty with local interconnect, etc., when they start trying to make the Deschutes. As for the 0.25 process, I am very surprised that the 1.9 volt Tillamook CPU runs two clock speed grades behind the Pentium II and only matches the performance of the MMX. AMD's 0.25 process at 1.9 volts is supposed to equal the clock speed of the Pentium II and be two speed grades ahead of the MMX. Petz

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next