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: Petz who wrote (83718)	12/20/1999 8:21:00 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1572108

<The above scenario means that until the Spitfire ramps, we have to keep K6x.> This is what I have been saying ! <After Spitfire ramps, we can get phase out K6x if all of the following are true: 1. Production cost for Spitfire are close to Coppermine 128K -- this would likekly be satified if its die size is close to Cu128K 2. 75% of Coppermine 128K's average price, which is what Spitfire will sell for, is at least $60 3. Super7 board makers spontaneously embrace Socket A, or are given financial incentives to do so.> I don't think #1 is too important assuming Spitfire keeps the MHz lead, which I expect it will. I don't believe #2. I kind of agree with #3 in the sense that it makes no sense to ramp Spitfire without infrastructure being enabled. So AMD has to work with MB vendors to make that happen.

To: Petz who wrote (83718)	12/20/1999 10:03:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr	Respond to of 1572108

Petz - RE: "However, even if all of the above are satified, if K6-2P die size is half that of Spitfire on 0.18 and frequencies can reach 700 MHz on 0.18, it makes sense to keep manufacturing them as the "low end" chip for both desktops and notebooks." The problem is that Ace's is saying AMD is having a tough time increasing the K6-X's MHz even on the new .18 process.