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: Jim McMannis who wrote (116181)	6/18/2000 2:33:00 PM
From: minnow68	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572090

Jim, If that is a real Willy, then we may have seen our first real Willy benchmark (11,483 3Dmarks). This is about 5% faster than what my back of the envelope calculation says an SDRAM based PC133 T-bird would get at 1.4 Ghz. So by the time this is out, what will Mustang be able to do? I believe that Mustang will increase performance by at least 5% (given Scumbria's comments about T-bird's L2, I believe this is reasonable). We will also see speed improvements due to the 266 Mhz bus, DDR memory, and larger caches. My best guess is that the die of Willy is large enough that Mustang with 1MB of L2 cache will be about the same size as Willy. Therefore, clock for clock, my best guess at this time is that Mustang will be 10-30% faster than a similarly clocked Willy. Since we all know that "Mhz sells (tm Jim McMannis)", we may wind up next year in a position where 1.5 Ghz Mustangs are the performance champs, but 1.7 Ghz Willys command top dollar. If this happens, it really limits the prices AMD will get for their chips, and it will limit how high AMD's stock can go. Under those circumstances, I really don't see how AMD could go much higher than $400-$500 a share by the end of next year. Mike

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (116181)	7/14/2000 10:34:21 AM
From: Cirruslvr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572090

Jim, Quiz: Why is the more expensive DRDRAM outperformed by the much more affordable PC133 SDRAM? A: Because Intel hasn't written the benchmarks yet that make DRDRAM look good! SERIOUSLY!!! Look at this BS Intel is spewing - ""The benchmarks used don't reflect a real-world situation - say where you'd have Word and Excel running concurrently," commented the Intel spinmeister with a commendably straight face. "Today's benchmarks run their tests consecutively, which doesn't give Rambus a chance to show how well it performs when there's a lot of heavy memory usage. "We're working with the major benchmarking organisations to develop more realistic test methodologies which will show the kind of performance of which Rambus is capable."" theregister.co.uk Intel has also just claimed the benchmarks used in their testing of the i815 and i820 chipsets "don't reflect a real-world situation"! I bet Intel is hard at work making Willy benchmarks as we speak!