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: Jim McMannis who wrote (75404)	10/13/1999 5:21:00 PM
From: DRBES	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572965

Do not be too overly confident, intC has yet to show its full hand. Keep in mind, intEL has all of the money in the world to throw at this problem. It is not over until it is over. I wait with some very negative anticipation for the actual introduction of the real cuoNTIME. Regards, DARBES

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (75404)	10/13/1999 5:26:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572965

McMannic - Re: "So...unless the Coppermine can out MHz the Athlon, (fat chance), the coppermine will go flopsky in the woods compared to the mighty Athlon. Looks like Intel is running out of crapola to pile on the snowball known as the P6 core... " Sounds like you are REALLY GETTING NERVOUS, Jimmie !!! That 5 year old P6 core seems to be pretty competitive with that NEW 7'TH GENERATION AthWIPE ! Maybe your NOOSE will tighten up on YOU come October 25 ! Paul

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (75404)	10/13/1999 6:12:00 PM
From: vince doran	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572965

Hi Jim - didn't mean to aim the benchmark mess at you particularly. However: the guys on Anand's forums were jumping to conclusions off their memory, I think. Go back and look at the new thread there and you will see the same numbers I looked at, except they haven't loaded the Firing Squad Kryotech 800 data yet. On most numbers the Athlon 650 does NOT exceed the oc'd 700 CUMine, more to the point, if you try to adjust the numbers to represent 733/RDRAM/i820 vs. 700/100, I think you will come to the same conclusion I did. It is a notable fact that HardOCP's numbers for the 800 CUMine seem about linearly better than the PIII 500 he had, however, as one of the Anand boys also notes, processor performance does not usually scale linearly over that kind of range, so the 800 CUm is likely somewhat faster than an 800 PIII would be. More to the point, we don't have to try to extrapolate up and back that far. The Kryotech 800 Athlon system is, for performance purposes, pretty much what an Athlon 800 wi. 100 MHz mem. would be if AMD were shipping it today on a .25um process. And the overclocked 800 CUm on 133 MHz mem. is pretty much like what a real 800/133 CUm would be, except that the bus overclocking would speed up other components that might have an effect on the benchs. That is why I think the synthetic CPU-intensive benchs are more meaningful for this system than, for instance, games. Elmer and others please note, most of these benchs are already using SSE or 3DNow. With all those caveats, if you compare those two systems, you see that the CUm is VERY competitive on everything except the SiS Drystone Int test. And if you then look at the 810/830/850 oc'd Athlons, you see considerable improvements in the same kinds of benchs, even at only 810 vs. 800. Thus I think the 125 mem speed is proving very helpful vs the 100 of the Kryotech system. Finally, other tests of the i820/RDRAM vs bx/133 have shown that the i820 can boost perf several %. Put that together with what can be extrapolated from the oc'd 800 CUm, and I stand by my original assertion. Needless to say, I would really like to see controlled, well-understood, head-to-head comparisons. But this is interesting info, nonetheless. Vince

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (75404)	10/13/1999 6:17:00 PM
From: Goutam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572965

Jim, It seems, AOPEN had a change of heart in supporting Athlon. AOpen will market an Athlon board based on new VIA K7 chipset in November? Check this post for more @ jc-news.com __________ AMD Athlon Chipsets: ---------------------------------- Following is copied from JC's re-post of AMD chipset road-map, apparently shown by Hotchips to one of its customers (text added by me is shown in Italic). Die Size Chip Version Tech & Voltage Max Core Speed (pad Limited) pins 1) SDRAM, 1P 0.35 micron 100 MHz 107mm^2 492 2X AGP 3.3V <--- AMD751 - Northbridge(System Controller) 2) SDRAM, 2P 0.35 micron 100MHz 130mm^2 656 2X AGP 3.3V <--- SMP chip - Dual Athlons for Servers? 3) DDR, 1P 0.25 micron 133MHz 133mm^2 553 4X AGP 2.5V <--- AMD760? 4) DDR, 2P 0.25 micron 133MHz 4X AGP 2.5V <--- SMP - dual Athlons for Workstations? 5) RDRAM, 1P 0.25 micron 133 MHz 107mm^2 492 4X AGP 2.5V <--- Depends on RDRAM success? According to the info given to JC, the chipset # 3 (AMD 760) may come out towards the end of Q1'00, and the #2 chipset is expected to come out in Q2'00. Note that, #2 chipset is a SMP chipset. But, based on the news we heard, that Dual Athlon boards will be shown at Comdex, and Kryotech plans to come out with a dual Athlon system in Q1'00, etc., the #2 chipset may show up earlier than Q2'00. Also, to Mani's question many posts ago about chipset on Kryotech Dual Athlon Board -- the answer may be the chipset #2. Goutama