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: Jim McMannis who wrote (93714)2/17/2000 2:06:00 AM
From: Process Boy  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1571208
 
Jim - <If Intel doesn't want to confuse the consumer, they better clarify things.
Interesting that KapKan4u revealed all this (different clock speed stuff) well before the demo and was laughed at by Ten, PB, Elmer, even Pravin. Pravin I can understand but the other three knew Kap was right and blasted him anyway...yet Pravin is the only one who apologized...>

Because he said NOTHING about functional blocks being DOUBLE the base frequency He was predicting functional blocks, specifically the FPU, at HALF the base frequency, WHICH IS TOTALLY WRONG!

I'm not going to apologize to him for coming on with inaccurate, ill-gotten tidbits, that had the slightest similarity ot the mechanisim, BUT 180 DEGREES IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

PB



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (93714)2/17/2000 2:43:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1571208
 
Jim, <Interesting that KapKan4u revealed all this (different clock speed stuff) well before the demo and was laughed at by Ten, PB, Elmer, even Pravin.>

Kap also said that the FPU would not run faster than 700 MHz. He might have been off by about 53%. <VBG>

Tenchusatsu


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News