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: EricRR who wrote (7155)	8/31/2000 2:37:17 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Ratbert, Re:Paul Demone's comments It is kind of dumb to do integer multiplies, when pipelined floating point multiplies are much faster on modern CPUs. The double speed ALU is really not very interesting, other than it's negative impact on clock speed. Doubling the number of execution units is a better solution, because it doesn't impact frequency as much. Scumbria

To: EricRR who wrote (7155)	8/31/2000 2:57:40 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 275872

EricRR, leaving aside the more technical aspects, I'd debate this little snippet: The business interest of Intel are best served by releasing enough information to put a positive spin on the product but not reveal its full potential to: A) avoid hurting sales of current products (Osborne effect), B) alerting competitors who can adjust their product development, marketing, and pricing strategies to compensate, C) stage manage expectations - always suprise on the upside, and D) so the "holy sh*t!" buzz about the product hasn't diminished to old news status by the time it is on the shelves in quantity. Intel scored a monumental psychological victory 5 years ago over RISC vendors in the way they managed the PPro introduction. But in the months leading up to that they deliberately dampened down expectations about PPro for maximum impact. Draw your own conclusions. I think this particular analysis, while certainly in line with the PPro history , falls apart in a number of places with the P4. How is there going to be a massive introduction of the P4? Unless it gets delayed into next year or something? Double sized die in the face of fab capacity limits, Rambus memory, which the memory makers claim to be ramping down, not up, plus a dual-rambus channel chipset, which, if the 840 boards can be used as a guide, is going to end up in mobos costing $400 or more. I agree with DeMone that it's somewhat pointless to speculate, and the P4 may actually end up looking really good, though there are plenty of contrary indicators. But a large scale launch in the near term would be quite a rabbit for Intel to pull out of its hat. It's possible, but I'd say it's more likely that P4 will look good in some things, bad in others. I'd also say, purely on economics, that it's not likely P4 will hit the mass market soon. We'll find out soon enough, Anand supposedly has (presuambly more reliable) numbers in hand. Cheers, Dan.