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: Elmer who wrote (81696)	12/1/1999 6:56:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572372

Elmer - RE: "I wish I kept the link but someone posted SPEC scores for both the CuMine and Athlon using the same compiler without prefetch. The CuMine still beat the Athlon. Anyone have that link? I think Kash has it but he may not want to post it." Faster than Athlon in SPECint, but not SPECfp. The numbers are somewhere within JC's news of the past week or so. www.jc-news.com/pc

To: Elmer who wrote (81696)	12/2/1999 6:02:00 AM
From: Kenith Lee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572372

Message 5872633 I think you're wrong again Max. Intel said it wasn't likely to cause a problem more than once every 25,ooo years for an average user. They didn't deny it. In all, that bug cost Intel $500 Million (and Vin Dham). The fact is that AMD introed a product which they knew caused system locks and AMD had no known fix at the time of intro. They kept quiet, hoping nobody would notice. Now I ask you, what would motivate a company to make such a high risk decision? A decision make at the very time when AMD's competitor had just introduced a processor that was 117 mhz faster than AMD's top of the line offering. The largest performance gap in the x86 industry history. What do you think might motivate a desperate company to make such a bad decision? Any ideas??? Do you have any idea?