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: ajbrenner who wrote (116025)	6/15/2000 5:40:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578545

Aj, Nice archiving there... RE:"To: Cirruslvr who wrote (83952) From: Elmer Wednesday, December 22, 1999 12:12 PM ET Reply # of 116025 Re: "This is all the info I have read about exclusive cache " That is a good description of an "exclusive" cache. Thanks. I must take issue though with some of the idle speculation regarding Intel's down binning of CuMines to PIII Celerons. The reason I don't think that will happen is because with the huge demand for both products, there would be no way to meet the PIII Celeron demand using only the CuMine L2 fallout. They simply don't get that many bad parts and despite the rumors, I have good reason to believe the CuMine yields are very good, even by Intel standards. Intel also wouldn't intentionally do wafer starts targeted for Celerons using the larger die because it's just a waste of silicon. They'll design a smaller die to reduce costs." Apparently this is a sore spot for Elmer.... So maybe Intel is taking Coppermines with 256k cache, laser zapping 128k, and is selling the chips for 1/3 the price? Great profit strategy there...(ohhh yeah!) I guess they figure they will make it up on volume...jajajaja It would say one possible good thing about yields, that Intel is yielding good enough to be able to cripple some coppermines, otoh, maybe they have plenty of lower bin splits to disable. <G> On the other hand, maybe it's like pulling teeth for Dell to get a good supply of Celeron IIs because Intel really doesn't like marking them down (especially being capacity restrained) and Dell really IS going to switch to the D U R O N... Which is it's own core...unlike the Cellie II... BTW... Jim

To: ajbrenner who wrote (116025)	6/15/2000 5:43:00 PM
From: Gopher Broke	Respond to of 1578545

I think Elmer missed the point on the downbinning of Cumines. After the Merdud and Willy slips, Intel have lost confidence in their engineering team to produce new working processors. Disabling half the Cumine cache was the only option that they thought they could get to work in a reasonable timescale.

To: ajbrenner who wrote (116025)	6/15/2000 6:04:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578545

Re: "Apparently Elmer is still "taking issue" on this subject" Good catch! My reasoning was sound (at the time). I will restate it in light of recent developments: If Intel planned to do a CeleronIII with the intention of producing many millions and having an extended lifespan, it would only make sense to redesign CuMine and remove half the cache to save silicon. If Intel didn't intend CeleronIII to have a significant lifespan and intended instead to replace it with a newer version with perhaps some other integrated components, then it might make sense to save the design resources and just disable half the CuMine cache for the CIII's limited lifespan. An issue that comes up is what happens if something should delay the CIII replacement? Of course this is just pure idle speculation on my part and I have no idea how it relates to Intel's actual product lines........ EP