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 (83724)	12/20/1999 8:14:00 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 1572220

Re: "BTW, did you read that the key design problem with the K6-3 was insufficient redundant SRAM columns? -- from JC's a couple weeks ago." John... Doesn't that tell you AMD had higher cacheram fallout then they forecast? EP

To: Petz who wrote (83724)	12/20/1999 8:29:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572220

Petz, <Finally, whatever AMD has to compete with the CuMine 128K has to have a very low cost of production, because they will probably be selling for $75.> I'm really not so sure AMD can afford to compete against Intel's huge manufacturing capacity in the value markets. Better to just stick to the high-margin stuff like the race to 1 GHz, in my opinion, and release Spitfire only as a token response to Cumine-128. <did you read that the key design problem with the K6-3 was insufficient redundant SRAM columns? -- from JC's a couple weeks ago.> Not sure that's really a core problem. It just means AMD's yields were lower than they expected. Sure, you can improve yields somewhat by adding more SRAM columns, but then you have the trade-off of fewer die per wafer. Perhaps AMD failed to find the right balance between yield and die size in the extremely short time they had before Athlon. Tenchusatsu