SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (83690)12/20/1999 3:49:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr  Respond to of 1572295
 
Elmer - RE: "The first obvious speculation is that this is a way to salvage otherwise unshippable die."

It seems like the L2 being smaller than L1 has nothing to do with performance and EVERYTHING to do with trying to make Spitfire as cheap to make as possible or as you say to salvage otherwise unshippable die..



To: Elmer who wrote (83690)12/20/1999 4:07:00 PM
From: Goutam  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1572295
 
Elmer,

The first obvious speculation is that this is a way to salvage otherwise unshipable die.

Good try. You always look for a way to raise doubt pointing to some kind of problem or weakness in any AMD decision - don't you? ;o)

Here is a good explanation from JC on this, and it makes pretty good sense -

jc-news.com

Regards,
Goutama



To: Elmer who wrote (83690)12/20/1999 4:29:00 PM
From: kapkan4u  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572295
 
<The first obvious speculation is that this is a way to salvage otherwise unshipable die>

Hi elmer,

You are a big expert in writing PUTS but apparently have no clue how L2 caches work. Why don't you stop watching the ticker and go ask around how inclusionary and exclusionary caches work. There are probably one or two EEs left at Intel who can explain this to you.

Kap