Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kash johal who wrote (61196)	6/9/1999 11:06:00 PM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572630

<Kash - re: But they are lumbering it with a more expensive chipset, much more expensive and hard to yield RDRAM.> Can anybody tell (if you know) or speculate (if you don't) how could Intel subject themselves to this incredible risk? They are now totally dependent on a new, unproven and proprietary technology, without having a direct manufacturing control over it? I am talking about RDRAM of course. Kap.

To: kash johal who wrote (61196)	6/10/1999 12:22:00 AM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572630

Kash - RE: "And I agree that Cumine will be much lower performance than a K7." Probably with FPU intensive applications (I'm basing that according to Tom's estimates of how much faster the K7 is than the PIII in FPU.) "So far, K7 seems to have a slight edge in integer performance, floating point performance seems to be some 20-30 % higher than PIII's though." www6.tomshardware.com But if the K7 only has a "slight edge" against the PIII right now, Coppermine might actually be faster than the K7 in the normal, non-high-end Winstone 99. Then we will brag about the K7's advantage in many benchmarks while they will say what we used to say!