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 (114525)	6/6/2000 2:10:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574180

Tenchusatsu, It appears that Thunderbird was a fairly straight forward change to on chip L2, with no additional changes to the core. I think the old path to L2 was 64bit as well. It seems that Thunderbird was a very low risk move by AMD. Given the fact that the lifetime of thunderbird will be very short (with probably no more than 2 to 3 months of wafer starts after today), the risk / reward seems appropriate. Joe

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (114525)	6/6/2000 2:39:00 AM
From: Steve Porter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574180

Tench, With all due respect: where is the difference in these 2 statements: "Steve, <Could it be (and this is just a hunch) that they are saving something for mustang, to be able to show improvement in their core when willamette is released?> Though I doubt AMD is deliberately handicapping T-bird's performance, I did mention before that I expect Mustang to have an improved L2 cache with a wider L2 data path and perhaps lower latency." Let's face it, if AMD wanted a wider l2 data bus on tbird they would have put it there. Just like if Intel WANTED 1MB of L2 cache on every coppermine it would be there. But it isn't. Why? Not because of the engineers, it's the marketting guys. They want cpus for desktop and then for servers and the for sub 1K and sub .6K and sub .5K etc. Steve