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: Scumbria who wrote (93830)	2/17/2000 10:33:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572332

Scumbria - <That sounds very suspicious to me.> Scumbria! Dag nabbit! Will you watch the presentation or not? Yu was just being goofy with his nomenclature. This is plain to see in the presentation. This whole thing has gotten out of hand. The Register sucks. PB

To: Scumbria who wrote (93830)	2/17/2000 10:48:00 AM
From: Epinephrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572332

Scumbria and thread, My apologies if this has been posted already: aceshardware.com I was wondering if you could comment on the following parts of the article. "For the Pentium IV or Willamette, Intel has decided to promote ISSE2 as an alternative to x87. The x87 FPU performance of the Pentium IV will not be very high, clock for clock. The evidence:..."(from the bottom of the first page) And "As the Willamette is supposed to start at 1.3 or 1.4 GHz, that could mean that the Willamette is mostly faster because it boasts higher clockspeeds, not higher IPC. In other words, AMD's Thunderbird should be able, to compete well with the Willamette clock for clock. That is unless, however, Intel makes sure support for the new ISSE2 instructions is superb" (From the conclusion at the bottom of the second page) What are your feelings as a chip architect regarding Intel's apparent decision to forgo significant X87 FPU enhancements in favor of ISSE2 Optimizations? Any comments from you would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Epinephrine

To: Scumbria who wrote (93830)	2/17/2000 9:24:00 PM
From: Charles R	Respond to of 1572332

Scumbria, <What is this all about?: "describing the microprocessor as 1GHz/500. The reason for this, according to representatives, was because end users and consumers would be confused by describing the chip as 1.5GHz."> Me thinks it is all about marketing. How do you get customers excited about a 1.1GHz product compared to 1.2 or 1.3GHz product? With this nomenclature it looks to a lot of people like they are comparing 100 MHz vs. 200 vs. 300. I think it is very well thought out segmentation move. Score one for Intel marketing. Chuck