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: Joe NYC who wrote (101233)	3/31/2000 4:15:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572778

Jozef, answers to your scattered questions: <Considering price, what makes you think that Spitfire can't compete with Celeron price-wise?> Platform. Celeron has 810. 'Nuff said. Meanwhile, Spitfire has to go into expensive Athlon motherboards. I've heard AMD is working on ways to lower the cost of the platform, including reducing the power consumption of the server-class EV6 interface. Seems like such work is a necessity if AMD wants Spitfire to be a real alternative to Celeron. I also heard of an upcoming chipset which integrates the TNT2 controller onto an ALI Aladdin chipset. (Remember ALI?) If that supports Spitfire, it will provide very strong competition to Celeron/810. <But what may be decisive is how well will both of these chips scale to higher clock speeds.> Yeah, my fear is that AMD will clock Spitfire so high that it breaks into Pentium III territory. <I guess the question may be what segment is Intel targeting with Culeron? Isn't the lowest end where Intel wants to position Timna?> I've wondered that myself. My guess was that Timna would take over the whole Celeron line eventually. This only makes sense, as Intel will eventually push Timna for low-end, Coppermine for mainstream, and Willamette for high-end. And for once, each market segment will be covered by vastly different CPU cores, instead of cache-twiddled cores. <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.> You're welcome. The funny thing about price is that it totally exaggerates the cost differential between RDRAM and DDR SDRAM. I hear CAS2 PC133 is yielding no better than 5% at the moment, which would make PC800 RDRAM look like a walk in the park by comparison. Yet CAS2 PC133 isn't demanding sky-high prices like RDRAM. Hopefully RDRAM can come down in price to the point where even AMD will be compelled to support it. If not, oh well. Tenchusatsu