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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Process Boy who wrote (89638)	10/7/1999 12:56:00 AM
From: Gary Ng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

PB, Re: You are right, Intel chooses to play its cards close to its chest. I don't know if Intel should. IMO, letting your partners (OEMs) know what will be coming and what to expect is the best strategy, Intel is not AMD and they really don't need to play this way. >As to the party in question, he claims to have inside >Intel sources. If he does, they sure don't know what's >going on where I am (Coppermine Product Design and >Process Development). One thing I learned for the past few years is that one can get a much clearer(and fair) view from just outside sources(or publicly available information). Inside sources usually hurt. Gary

To: Process Boy who wrote (89638)	10/7/1999 1:43:00 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I have keen memories of how Coppermine was "just a Dixon", and much much bally-hooing over the .18 Dixon MHz, and how these were indicators of what was to come. Somebody showed me one of those (I think) "Dixon" CPUs in cross section. It appeared to be just a short .25um device plugged into .18um groundrules. I suspect they use the same channel length device that goes into a 600MHz PIII (physical poly would be small enough to fit into .18um groundrules) and then run it at say 1.5V vs 2.05V for PIII. Thus, big power reduction and maybe 33% performance hit down to 400MHz. So,if this is true, Dixon performance makes sense. THE WATSONYOUTH

To: Process Boy who wrote (89638)	10/7/1999 2:24:00 PM
From: Saturn V	Respond to of 186894

Process Boy :Ref - <What would be your take on a Coppermine with 512 L2? > Coventional wisdom says that for most applications the incidence of a L2 miss drops off as a square root of cache size. Thus without any further changes to the architecture, there should be significant but minor improvement on most benchmarks. However the Server market seems to benefit more than typical applications by increasing the cache . Thus the 512K Coppermine would do very well for servers and some workstations, and may be a good low cost replacement for Xeons. As the processor speed is increased the impact of a cache miss is more severe [ unless the memory and bus speeds also scale]. Thus if you go the >1Ghz Coppermine, the need for a 512K Coppermine will be significant even for mainstream applications.