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 (70091)	8/28/1999 1:33:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1572633

PB, two things about that article from www.mackido.com: 1) The article is rather old. You'll notice that it made references to Katmai, which means it was written before the name Pentium III came about. Not only that, but the article is incredibly biased (no surprise). 2) This sort of stuff is exactly the kind of stuff I'd expect Kapkan4u to link. And remember that Kap is the guy who is expecting AMD to match Intel's market cap by the end of 2001. Tenchusatsu

To: Process Boy who wrote (70091)	8/28/1999 2:02:00 AM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572633

<Intel has never had a penchant to implement immature process technology.> PB, I think the article is saying that one size fits all (copy exactly) methodology is no longer good for Intel. There is something wrong with building a $40 Celeron and a $3000 Xeon on exactly the same process in exactly the same FABs. It is like building Bentleys and Yugos on the same assembly line. A while back, Intel looked at SOI and decided that it was unsuitable for the type of volumes that the Intel process requires. But if SOI gives you say a 20% performance increase, it would have been perfectly reasonable, to use it for low volume, high performance parts like Xeons. Kap