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: Ali Chen who wrote (81062)	11/25/1999 1:15:00 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 1574805

Ali, re: KX133 may be slow like VIA's PIII chipset I assume AMD shared their expertise with VIA and helped them develop the KX133, in which case it should at least get a boost from 133 MHz memory interface, if not from 266 MHz CPU interface. Petz

To: Ali Chen who wrote (81062)	11/25/1999 1:20:00 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 1574805

Ali, if the K6-2P on 0.18æ is imminent, do you agree that AMD should make a deal with VIA that AMD not to sell any sub-500 MHz parts after Y2K? (Let VIA battle Intel at the low end.) In return, VIA would continue to develop Athlon chipsets. Petz

To: Ali Chen who wrote (81062)	11/25/1999 3:34:00 PM
From: Charles R	Respond to of 1574805

Ali, <their 133-MHz chip for Pentiums performs worse than Intel i440BX chip at 100MHz, according to all published data.> This is true, Intel makes the best chipsets so far. But, I don't think AMD can get Intel to support slot-A. So, we need to settle for something less ;-) My comment was basically based on the performance improvement we will see because: 1. PC133 with CAS2 will marginally improve integer performance but can significantly improve FP performance 2. A new revision in the chip means some of the bugs from the older version would be fixed to get some incremental enhancements 3. 133MHz clock will, in general, reduce pipeline latencies Chuck P.S.: My speculation is that VIA chipset uses one additional clock in the pipeline to memory access (read) and hence underperforms Intel chipset. If true, changing the clock from 100 to 133 doesn't fix that problem.