Intel Corporation (INTC) 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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)

INTC 46.47

-4.5%

Jan 30 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: FJB who wrote (7724)	1/9/1997 3:43:00 PM
From: Barry Grossman	of 186894

Bob: Re Jules' comments and your response to him: Jules' comments:<<"IMHO that the best stategy for AMD and CYRX to take, is for them to come up with new inovations on their own, instead of relying on the paracytic approach that have taken until now." Your response: Cyrix designs are wholly original. They achieve x86 compatibilty and superior performance(highest winstone96 benchmarks) through an approach not taken by Intel. Their pentium equivalent contains most of the features employed by the PPro, but also avoids decoding x86 instructions to RISC-like instructions. They are the only x86 design team to take such an approach, on their latest processor iteration.>> First of all, I consider your first paragraph (not reprinted here) response to Jules to be rather harsh and certainly unnecessary and misplaced. Secondly, I believe you took his "new innovations" to mean "wholly original" designs. What is so wholly original about a chip that is attempting compatibility with a competitive product? Then you talk about their "pentium(sic) equivalent" (this should be "Pentium equivalent"). What is "wholly original" about a product that is the "equivalent" of a competitor's product? IMHO, a sucessful wholly original design would indeed be wholly original. It would not depend on previously sucessful products but would present a new paradigm to the industry. If INTC's technology is able to be copied/improved/redisigned/speeded up/whatever you want to call it, I don't consider that particularly innovative. INTC's products yet to come, which we have seen discussed here many times, do appear to be wholly innovative because there is NOTHING like them around today. If Cyrix or AMD had the money AND the capability, they would also be woking on such "wholly original" products AND talking about them as much as INTC has been. I don't think they do though because they have enough trouble staying alive in the market now with their present technology and market share. It appears to me that it will only get worse for them from now on. FWIW (For what its worth). Don't you think it's a little trivial and small of you to point out others spelling mistakes. We all make them. Nobody is perfect. BG

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next