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 (109367)	5/4/2000 4:57:00 PM
From: Goutam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579192

Tenchusatsu, > For Spitfire, I think AMD would be better off stressing the latter (MHz and FPU) over the former (bus and cache > They can tout all the four - MHZ, FPU, Bus and cache to please every segment of consumers out there ;^) Goutama

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (109367)	5/4/2000 5:50:00 PM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579192

Tench - RE: "But neither of those "advantages" were enough to overcome K6-3's two glaring weaknesses: low MHz and weak FPU. For Spitfire, I think AMD would be better off stressing the latter (MHz and FPU) over the former (bus and cache)." How about marketing all of them? ;) K6-III didn't have the MHz so it didn't get far. Spitfire has: * MUCH stronger FPU * more on-chip cache * MHz * 200MHz bus and we can add * seventh gen processor * AGP 4X (if integrated video card is diabled) * PC133 RAM (if the OEM chooses) What does Celeron have that Spitfire doesn't have? * Intel name Do I sense a mismatch?