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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (76393)	10/21/1999 5:31:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 1573824

Ten, I wonder how much a slower L2 cache is really going to hurt Athlon performance It depends on the critical word latency. The fact that the remainder of the L2 cache line is moved into the L1 cache more slowly, does not necessarily impact desktop performance very much. It is entirely possible that the 800MHz L2 latency may be less than the 700MHz latency. Scumbria

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (76393)	10/21/1999 10:58:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573824

RE <<<Due to i820's delay VIA sees it's chance of a lifetime. If Coppermine gets released without i820, the only sensible 133 MHz FSB & AGP4x platform will be the VIA 640 chipset. Thus all efforts at VIA are directed towards this chipset. At the same time resources are taken away from the development of VIA's upcoming Athlon-chipset..>> I don't buy this argument. Unless Via is very stupid, they know that they are not big enough or strong enough to antagonize two of their largest customers. The problems with the i820 is short term. Intc and/or AMD would have to be mortally wounded before a smart ceo would take the risk that Sharkey's is suggesting above. ted