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: Dan3 who wrote (82851)	12/14/1999 12:38:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 1580449

ALibiDan - re: "AMD has a proven, multiprocessor, high performance, point to point architecture bus with years of development ready for Sledgehammer. " A PROVEN Multiprocessor yadayada yada ? Gee...AMD is sandbagging so as not to EMBARRASS Intel ! Now, where are the MULTIPROCESSOR ATHWiper ANNONCEMENTS that have been PROVEN with years of development ready for Sledgehammer? Why doesn't AMD use these "proven, multiprocessor, high performance, point to point architecture bus with years of development " for the AthWIPER ? Paul

To: Dan3 who wrote (82851)	12/14/1999 12:41:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580449

AlibiDan - Re: "AMD may be a few months behind in shipping its 64 bit CPU" That is RIGHT !!!!! ANd next month, AMD will be THREE months behind. And in February, 2000, AMD will be FOUR months behind ! And in March, 2000, AMD will be FIVE months behind ! And in April, 2000, AMD will be SIX months behind ! And in May, 2000, AMD will be SEVEN months behind ! And in ....well, I think you get the picture ! Paul

To: Dan3 who wrote (82851)	12/14/1999 12:43:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 1580449

AlibiDan - Re: "Sledgehammer's competition is Coppermine on single, dual, and Profusion based servers, not Itanium. " WRONG AGAIN ! By the time SludgeHummer is out, Intel will have already been shipping its REAL SEVENTH GENERATION processor - WIllamette and its SERVER version, FOSTER. Do you think Intel is asleep ? Paul

To: Dan3 who wrote (82851)	12/14/1999 1:10:00 AM
From: Tom W.	Respond to of 1580449

AMD & Linux beat Sun box two fold: newsalert.com Interesting.

To: Dan3 who wrote (82851)	12/14/1999 1:28:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1580449

Dan, <it's years ahead in its chipset/bus - because it has licensed the Alpha EV6 technology from Compaq/DIGITAL. ... And Itanium will hit the market on a version 1.0 bus architecture> Wrong. The Merced bus is a shared multiprocessor bus which is pretty similar to the P6 bus. Gee, doesn't this run contrary to AMD's claims of "superior EV6 technology"? My guess is that the architects looked at P2P buses and decided they weren't worth it, at least for now. Or it could be just simple leveraging of the proven P6 bus into a new architecture, and that was deemed a better strategy than going P2P. Time will tell. <although, since Merced is several years late, there has been lots of time to develop its chipset - in simulation, at least> Wrong again, at least on the "simulation" part. 460GX taped out, booted up, and ran on several operating systems even before Merced taped out. Among other things, that allowed Intel to demonstrate Itanium-based systems at the August IDF in Palm Springs. And that was just a couple of weeks after first silicon came back. <And AMD has a perfect solution for the traditional X86 server market - while Itanium has been targeting the high end, $100,000 and above market.> Wrong again. No 460GX-based system is going to sell at price points above $100K. The predecesor of the 460GX was the 450NX (Xeon 4-way chipset), and no 450NX system sold for more than $50K or $60K. Charging any more for such servers would go contrary to Intel's SHV strategy (Standard High Volume). Sure, other companies like IBM/Sequent, NEC, Bull, etc., are going to create custom Itanium-based solutions that target the >$100K range. But none of them will come close to the cookie-cutter volumes that 460GX will enable. <Sledgehammer's competition is Coppermine on single, dual, and Profusion based servers, not Itanium.> Wrong again. By the time Sledgehammer is out, Foster should be well-entrenched in the 4-way and 8-way x86 server space. Profusion will be a fading memory by then. And if Sledgehammer is only a K7 with 64-bit extensions and a few extra floating-point enhancements, it will fall severely behind Foster. Dual core Sledgehammer? Bah. (And there are several reasons for the "Bah," but you don't need to know what they are.) Tenchusatsu

To: Dan3 who wrote (82851)	12/14/1999 11:32:00 PM
From: Doug M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580449

Dan3, I'm having a little problem following your logic. In this quote you imply that the EV6 bus technology from Compaq/Digital is very technologically advanced. "AMD may be a few months behind in shipping its 64 bit CPU, but since it doesn't suffer from NIH (not invented here) syndrome, it's years ahead in its chipset/bus - because it has licensed the Alpha EV6 technology from Compaq/DIGITAL." Then you go on to say that AMD: "had the foresight to design for DDR DRAM from the beginning, instead of falling for Rambus, then having to go back and start from scratch when it became clear that Rambus wasn't the best approach." My question is why would a company (Digital/Compaq)that has such a great bus technology with the EV6 plan to go onto use a next generation processor with the "wrong" DRAM controller built into the CPU? As you should know, Samsung just won the contract to develop the Alpha EV7 processor. Did you know the EV7 has built in RDRAM controllers? I guess the "technologically advanced" people picked the wrong DRAM, didn't they? Doug