SI
SI
discoversearch

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: pgerassi who wrote (5213)8/16/2000 11:53:50 AM
From: jcholewaRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Pete:

I do have an additional query regarding what you said before. You mentioned that you think that Intel will drop the FCLK on the P4 (I'm talking about the doubly clocked integer ALUs) because it hampers ramping too much, and you said that P4-1400 would perform similarly to PIII-1000 in integer stuff. Does this comparison hold before they would hypothetically drop the FCLK or after? What I mean is, would P4 be that slow, in your opinion, with FCLK or without?

Thank you. :)

-JC



To: pgerassi who wrote (5213)8/16/2000 11:59:12 AM
From: AK2004Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Pete

re:The problem with P4@1400 ~= P3@1000 is not a problem iff the sweet spot of P3 is 700 and P4 is 1400 on the same process

Iff performance estimates are true then that is not a problem only if you want to kill p4 :-)). I think you meant to say that p4 sweet spot is 2Ghz - it gotta push p4 outside of pIII performance and we have mass production :-)) of pIII-1.13Ghz now.

Regards
-Albert

ps for intel's sake I hope that p4's performance is not that bad


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News