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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wolff who wrote (95895)	1/13/2000 1:26:00 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Wolff, It appears your bark is a bit stronger than your facts. RE: "monogomus Gateway is not fooling around." In the past, GW has experienced a divorce with AMD. By the way, GW has two partners now. RE: "The scraps left by Intel will bring about a strong competitor, you now see now" In higher margin markets, there's more of a threat of this happening. RE: "AMD grew strong on the sub-1000 class PCs with the K6 series." This thesis is not accurate since it involves: a) a low-margin market, to which b) AMD lost quite quickly, when c) Intel decided to go after this market. RE: "Back to the failed Merced" I can see you may not have been reading up on the publicly available material. RE: "The only reason why the Merced will be released is to save face." I can see you may not have read up on the Server market. RE: "the borrowed newer technology" I can see you appear to be unfamiliar with Merced. RE: "the edge has been taken off Processor speed and given to the Video Card." In certain markets, yes, but not in totality. The statement appears to lack a complete understanding of the total business picture. RE: "The last question I have, is how much will Windows 2000 be a hog and slower than Windows98" Win2000 is not a consumer release. Win2000 follows the naming convention of the consumer release, however, this does not make it a consumer release. Your question does not equate because these are: different markets, different users. i.e. this is comparing apples and oranges. Regards, Amy J

To: Wolff who wrote (95895)	1/13/2000 1:50:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Wolff, your conclusions about Merced are based on very faulty assumptions: <but the end result is a pathetically delayed part.> And yet, when Merced is finally released, it is considered to top the big RISC boys like Alpha and UltraSPARC. Sure, the well-publicized Merced delay was a big embarassment for Intel, but that's old news now. <Essential you have the P8 ready within months of the release of Merced.> Get it right, it's called Willamette, not P8. Actually, let's talk about Foster, the server version of Willamette. Foster is not intended to replace Merced at all. In fact, it is speculated that Foster's performance will roughly equal that of Merced. The real successor of Merced, McKinley, will blow away both Merced and Foster in terms of performance, but McKinley isn't going to arrive until late 2001. <The only reason why the Merced will be released is to save face.> No, the only reason why Merced is being released is to launch a new IA-64 platform. It takes time for the industry to adopt a new platform. Merced is intended to spearhead the transition. Then McKinley will follow up with even more performance. After that, Madison and Deerfield will continue the ramp-up in IA-64 performance. And this path is totally separate from the Willamette/Foster path. Let me get one thing cleared up: IA-64 and IA-32 are going to be two separate paths. IA-32 will pursue optimum x86 performance (compatibility is a great thing to keep), while IA-64 will pursue pure performance at the expense of x86 compatibility. (Actually, IA-64 is meant to be hardware-compatible with IA-32, but IA-32 code running on an IA-64 processor isn't expected to have mind-blowing performance.) Tenchusatsu

To: Wolff who wrote (95895)	1/13/2000 2:05:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Wolff, <AMD grew strong on the sub-1000 class PCs with the K6 series.> And lost that strength as of last year when Intel went aggressive with Celeron. Why do you think AMD has switched focus from the low-end to the high-end? It's not just because they wanted to be "processor macho." Rather, it's a matter of survival for AMD who has been losing a lot of money for the past several years. <The AMD Athlon also is the overclocker CPU of choice too.> So what? Overclockers make up, what, like 0.1% of the entire market of PC buyers? Besides, most overclockers do it for economic reasons, not performance reasons. They don't want to spend mucho moohla for the top-of-the-line processor. Rather, they'd prefer buying a lower speed grade at a lower price, then running that to the same speeds as the top-of-the-line that they could have bought for much more. <Besides all this I think the edge has been taken off Processor speed and given to the Video Card.> Perhaps, but I wouldn't want to pair up a high-end video card with a not-so-high-end processor. Even the nVidia GeForce 256 with its integrated T&L engine still needs a fast CPU in order to demonstrate performance scalability. Tenchusatsu