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 (75504)	10/14/1999 1:14:00 PM
From: Charles R	Respond to of 1573024

Kash, <The elimination of external cache die and slot packaging should provide them with significant cost savings as well.> You can get all that and more by bumping L1 cache to 256k. Die size will be approx 120mm2 and it will be eminently manufacturable (I do not know if there would be impact on MHz). AMD can sell this with or without L2 cache depending on the target market. Chuck

To: kash johal who wrote (75504)	10/14/1999 1:55:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 1573024

Kash - Re: "And yields will be much better for a comparable die size due to redundancy in the cache memory." Just like AMD's K63 yields were "much better" - and the Kmart63 was only 118 sq. mm. Look for AMD to be in trouble with yields and forced to stay with off-chip cache for quite awhile. Paul

To: kash johal who wrote (75504)	10/14/1999 9:20:00 PM
From: Yousef	Respond to of 1573024

Krash, Re: "Athlon die size with 512K on chip ... And yields will be much better for a comparable die size due to redundancy in the cache memory." This might be true for simple functional yield (@ slow speed), but redundancy won't do anything for speed yield problems. I believe this is what hurt the K6-3 ... remember, Krash ?? This is also probably why AMD did not start out the K7 this way ... They were "gun shy" after shooting themselves in the "foot" on the K6-3. Make It So, Yousef