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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (106799)	8/2/2000 8:46:28 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer, Pete, let's give it a rest for now. If Tom's defective 1.13 GHz Pentium III is a sign of things to come from Intel, we'll hear about it soon enough. Customers will return the 1.13 GHz machines, OEM's will discover that some of Intel's CPUs are DOA, and Intel will once again suffer yet another embarrassment due to bad execution. Personally, I think Tom just got unlucky, and now he's simply venting. That's pretty unfortunate considering that he didn't have such a high opinion of Intel before he received the CPU. It's also unfortunate because Tom has a lot of influence over hundreds of thousands of PC enthusiasts. It's a good thing Intel PR is dealing with the situation appropriately, even though Tom could back off on his bias. (Journalists who demonstrate real professionalism don't resort to calling Intel "Satan Clara," no matter what the circumstances.) Tenchusatsu

To: Elmer who wrote (106799)	8/2/2000 8:49:35 PM
From: L. Adam Latham	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer: Re: To compound matters, Tom refuses to return the part. I hadn't heard that, but then again I haven't been able to keep up with all the posts on the subject. Does he say why he won't return it? Do these reviewers even pay for the parts, or are they free? His refusal to allow the part to be examined by Intel engineers seems very strange to me. Adam

To: Elmer who wrote (106799)	8/3/2000 12:50:33 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Elmer: That is just the point. Intel is trying to go to the bleeding edge of performance. The models were not tested against that assumption. The Intel "Model" is pushing the limit of voltage using new low cap dielectrics and higher dv/ds due to thin thicknesses. Just because a model works with tried and true silicon dioxides at large thicknesses (about 100A) does not mean it works with thicknesses of 20A and exotic materials. At the ranges discussed, quantum effects begin to take precedence. Therefore the old "model" may no longer be accurate. The original model does not take into account speed loss but absolute failure. A failure probability of 0.05% would assume that your yield would have to be 99.95% and you know that even on mature processes, yield is not 99.95%. Assuming you mean 0.05% fail within a day after Intel testing of them checked out as good, the current failure rate (in public view) of between 6% and 20% is far higher than that. To get down to the level you say, there would have to be 4000 samples out there. This is not very likely since Intel says that a replacement CPU is not available. To get a 0.05% probability with at least 1 bit of significance requires 10 failures or 20K parts. Intel has not produced the required amount. The 1 GHz Tbird has that amount as does the 933 MHz P3. The 1 GHz P3 is very likely around that threshold by now. Thus, the 1133 P3 is no where near that amount. Since even Intel can not verify the model works with the current bin of 1133 P3, all your theories are based on assumptions based on CPUs running at Tj of 80C or more with voltages 10% less (current mainline P3s). The only body of knowledge for operation at these more severe operating parameters is that of extreme overclockers. 1133 Mhz is a 13.3% overclock of 1000 MHz. Since the highest stable overclock I know of for a P3 is 1050 MHz (5%), Intel by skipping two speed grades (1066 and 1100 MHz) is taking a big risk. The chickens may be coming home to roost. The highest reported overclock is 1152 Mhz for a 1133 P3, a mere 2.5%. AMD has many reported stable overclocks of 1100 MHz (10%) thus a 1100 MHz speed grade is a far lesser risk. The assumptions that models work at the margins is one of the classic errors in science. Pete