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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (93950)	2/17/2000 9:46:00 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 1571808

Re: "I'm told by a Willamette guy that the "Fireball" core (as it's internally called) does indeed run at 3.0 GHz. " I didn't want to use that word "fireball" but now that you've said it that is exactly the name I heard about a year ago to describe the new circuitry that would be used on Willamette. I mentioned this last night and was ridiculed (naturally). My understand is that it is new and revolutionary circuitry. AMDolts please fill in your outrage and accusations of lying in the space provided below. EP

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (93950)	2/18/2000 1:19:00 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571808

Ten, I'm assuming this allows for faster execution of a string of instructions which are affected by RAW hazards (i.e. the next instruction depending on the results of the previous one). And my assumption is that RAW hazards occur a lot, even with all of the out-of-order execution. RAW hazards are extremely common. Most instructions are dependent on results from previous instructions. I'm told by a Willamette guy that the "Fireball" core (as it's internally called) does indeed run at 3.0 GHz. Intel said that the ALU runs at 3 GHz. That is a far cry from the core running at 3 GHz. Scumbria