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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kash johal who wrote (4858)	8/13/2000 6:36:35 PM
From: andreas_wonisch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Kash, Re: Tualatin with sub celeron die size, 512K on chip cache and 200Mhz fsb will be a kick ass low end processor. And they should be able to yield plenty at 1Gh-1.5Ghz. I doubt that the P6 core will go ever so high. Even with the latest stepping (a 20% core shrink!) the P3 barely reaches 1 GHz. At 1.13 GHz it needs extra cooling and a microprocessor update otherwise it runs extremely unreliable (see Tom, HardOCP and c't). I don't see why another core shrink (.13 micron) with increased L2 cache(!) would improve binsplits significantly. IMO the P6 core has reached its limits at the 800-1000 MHz range. If P4 doesn't achieve killer performance Intel has created a huge opportunity for AMD. And keep in mind that Intel won't have much .13 micron copper capacity in 2001. There ramp-up has just begun and they have no experience in copper technology. I don't see how they could catch up before 2002 at the earliest. IMO it's much more likely that Intel will increase the Celeron FSB to 100 MHz in 2001 (=low end) and sell the P3 with 200 MHz FSB in the mainstream, mid-range market. I think they will drop Timna completely. So AMD will be extremely competitive in all market segments except perhaps the high end where P4 could outperform Mustang on highly optimized applications. Andreas

To: kash johal who wrote (4858)	8/13/2000 9:02:49 PM
From: TechieGuy-alt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Kash, thank you for a good response. At first I thought- Hey, this is a good explanation. I was seeing a problem in Intel's lineup where there was none. But wait! Let's think about this. According to popular reports, copper is needed at 0.13 microns. Again according to reports on the net, Intel's 0.13 will not come on line till mid 2001. Now Intel has about half a dozen plants. In other words, in 2001 0.13 with copper will not be the main stream manufacturing process that intel will have. It will be the "exotic" top of the line stuff. Why would a company ramp the lowest ASP processor (celeron equivalent) on their top of the line (limited volume compared to mainstream) process? No that does not make much sense. Plus, the 0.18 coppermines (today's mainstream processors) would make a perfect celeron replacement for the next generation. Why the significant improvement for the next generation low end? Additionally, a 0.13 processor with 1/2 meg cache would be too good a performer (compared to the huge amount of 0.18 coppermines) that Intel will still be churning out in mid 2001, to be a low end. Nope. And I as a company, would want my top of the line processors made on the top of the line (limited volume) process. That's what gave me the indication that P3's on 0.13 (with copper) may be Intel's top of the line mainstream processor not P-IV!. But P-IV's would have been out for more than 8 months by then. Why would they not be moving into the mainstream by then? Heck, we know that from an architecture standpoint coppermine is struggling to keep up with Athlon. If Intel has the weapon that was designed to annihilate the Athlon, why not ramp that ASAP?!? TG (P.S. All the above is assuming that Intel will have less than-say- 20% capacity at 0.13 micron and 80% will still be at 0.18) >>I think there is a perfectly simple explanation. >>Intel will be dropping celerons next year. >>Tualatin will be low to mid end processor. >>Willy is for high end. >>Timna is there low end solution. >>By mid 2001 Intel is planning on gobs of .13 wafer capacity. >>They are spending 6Bn in 2000 to bring that up. >>Tualatin with sub celeron die size, 512K on chip cache and 200Mhz fsb will be a kick ass low end processor. >>And they should be able to yield plenty at 1Gh-1.5Ghz. >>Why do you find this scenario unlikely.