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 (101210)	3/31/2000 2:40:00 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572777

Ten, all Spitfire needs to do is roughly match the current Athlon Spitfire should be faster on some benchmarks (depending on the working set size of the code) because of the onboard L2. Scumbria

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (101210)	3/31/2000 2:47:00 AM
From: Mani1	Respond to of 1572777

Tench Re <<Where exactly is Spitfire targeted? Can't be low-end; Spitfire just can't compete against Celeron price-wise.>> Yes it is the low end. AMD has been very clear that Spitfire will compete on the low end and as per published report on ZDNET, it is planned to be priced competitively with Celeron. It won't be discounted vs. the Celeron like K62 is, but it will not be much (if any) higher. It should have better margin than the K62. Mani

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (101210)	3/31/2000 2:48:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572777

Tenchusatsu Well, that brings up a good question. Where exactly is Spitfire targeted? Can't be low-end; Spitfire just can't compete against Celeron price-wise. It is still unclear where Spitfire will come in performance-wise. AMD has been fairly good at enforcing NDAs this time. There is no agreement on cache configuration, size or latency. I wish someone would test cacheless Athlon vs. Celeron. That might give us some indication on performance potential. If the L2 is smaller than 128K, with not so great latency / datapath width, the performance will be lower than Athlon. But it may still be better than Celeron (which happens to be crippled by 66MHz bus - for marketing reasons) I don't think it is far fetched to assume that Spitfire will outperform Celeron at the same clock speed. Considering price, what makes you think that Spitfire can't compete with Celeron price-wise? There are rumors out there that Spitfire die size is 99mm^2. Isn't it about the same as Celeron? But what may be decisive is how well will both of these chips scale to higher clock speeds. Celeron is at 600 MHz. I don't think there is any reason to expect Spitfire to be worse than Athlon, where 600 MHz is the low end. If high end Celeron chips compete with low end of Spitfire chips, there is no reason to expect parity at clock-speeds where the 2 overlap. Intel may be forced to stop crippling their chips (with 66 MHz FSB) to stop Intel chips from being the slowest commercially available CPUs. I guess the question may be what segment is Intel targeting with Culeron? Isn't the lowest end where Intel wants to position Timna? Maybe the real market segmentation will be: Timna for the lowest end, Celeron above that, than Spitfire for economy PCs, Coppermine/Athlon for mainstream, Thunderbird / Willamette for high end. I wonder if the Intel marketing guy who positioned Culeron against Athlon is still employed at Intel. Joe PS: I forgot to thank you for your summary of Rambus vs. SDRAM / DDR from while ago. It is still in the academic category due to the price difference between the memory types.