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: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (6445)	8/24/2000 1:58:56 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Pravin, thanks for that analysis that shows that the Dresden copper CPU's use less power. At Intel things are actually the reverse. The 1.13 GHz PIII requires a huge jump in current and a 0.1 volt increase in voltage. The 1 GHz PIII uses 19.4 amps at 1.7 volts The 1.13 GHz uses 23 amps at 1.8 volts If Intel had AMD's copper process, it looks like they could scale the PIII to 1.26 GHz just based on the fact that heat is the primary obstacle to raising PIII's top frequency. Oh, well, too bad... (;~>) Petz

To: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (6445)	8/25/2000 12:43:38 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

Pravin, Don't get too excited just yet. Jerry stated that all 1.1 Ghz processors and most of the 1.0 Ghz processors are built using the copper process. So, the power specs up to 1.0 Ghz include the higher power Al cores from Austin. The small power increment to 1.1 Ghz indicates that the Dresden process is lower power than the Austin process -- nothing more. But, we already knew this. That's a perfect explanation. Thanks. AMD's specs for Tbird up to 1 GHz were the worse of Cu or Al process. It means that my 1 GHz Tbirds from Dresden have lower power requirement than stated in the specs. Joe