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: Process Boy who wrote (69982)	8/27/1999 8:36:00 AM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573433

Re: "But of course. That's why I expect Intel to pre-announce a lousy 3rd quarter, since everyone is returning their 600 systems due to instability problems.....not." Since some of you process people appear to have trouble understanding Tom's point, maybe I can clarify. The issue isn't stability at 600 MHz. Stability at 600 MHz is FINE. The issue is stability at 650 MHz. For the first time in a long time, it's tough to overclock an Intel chip by a mere 8% and still keep it stable. That's what normally happens with AMD because they've had to push their process to the limit to keep up with Intel in the MHz race. Now, however, it's the AMD parts that seem to want to overclock. Now, it may be that AMD has cherry picked parts and sent them to Tom, so we should tke the reports of Athlon's overclocking with a grain of salt. But I see no reason to dismiss Tom's observation that the PIII's don't overclock well at all. It may also be a matter of L2 cache stability t high MHz rather than core stability. But than I have to wonder why AMD's source for SRAM is better than Intel's. Kevin