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: fyodor_ who wrote (19828)	11/20/2000 1:43:37 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"Like the PPro in its second version, the P4 will be an excellent product for a wide range of consumers" And if Intel has the luxury of no effective competition like it did when the PII was introduced, then Intel will be doing just great. But if the competition moves forward, like AMD has been, then things may not be as rosy.

To: fyodor_ who wrote (19828)	11/20/2000 1:46:05 PM
From: Gopher Broke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

and there is little doubt that it has much, much more headroom I would like to challenge that assertion. Intel's projections are all related to their .13 process. Yes, there is little doubt that Willy will do better on .13 but then I would expect the Athlon to sail past 2.0 GHz on AMD's SOI .13 process. As far as on the current .18 process, I suspect that with the internal 3.0 GHz logic Intel are already sailing close to the wind. We shall see.

To: fyodor_ who wrote (19828)	11/20/2000 1:58:32 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I think a lot of these negative comments are due to unrealistic expectations. If you compare the PIII to P4 transition to the P5 to P6 transition, the P4 actually looks pretty good. As I posted previously, I disagree with that. The PPro looked great on 32 bit code at introduction. x86 32 bit mode was only 10 years old or so when the PPro was launched. It wasn't Intel's fault that the world was still running oodles of 16bit code, including big chunks of Win95. It was Intel's fault that they screwed up 16 bit mode in the PPro, though. Intel never pushed the PPro as its mainstream chip because the original packaging was expensive and required fabbing 2 processor-sized chips for each processor shipped, due to the custom cache chip. Of course, according to my limited understanding of semiconductor fabrication, producing 2 processor-sized chips ought to be cheaper than producing a single (more than) double-sized chip, as in the P4, at least in terms of silicon production costs. Packaging is probably easier, though. Cheers, Dan.

To: fyodor_ who wrote (19828)	11/20/2000 2:04:01 PM
From: jjayxxxx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<fyo: I think a lot of these negative comments are due to unrealistic expectations. If you compare the PIII to P4 transition to the P5 to P6 transition, the P4 actually looks pretty good. ... Like the PPro, the P4 is big and expensive. Like the PPro in its second version, the P4 will be an excellent product for a wide range of consumers.> I am not very familiar with the situation at the time of the PPro introduction. Did it have a legitimate competitor? If not (which would be my guess), I would hardly call the P4 beginning similar to the PPro. P4 actually has some competition. The relative poor performance of the P4 is something that customers don't have to buy if they don't want to. Unlike during the PPro days. EDIT: oops! combjelly already said this (essentially) FWIW, JJ

To: fyodor_ who wrote (19828)	11/20/2000 2:25:44 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<Face it, "revolutionary new architectures" from Intel have ALWAYS been ... and there is little doubt that it has much, much more headroom...> What do you see as "revolutionary" in the P-4? Yes, the Pentium-Pro (and derivatives P-II and III) was revolutionary with the superpipelined short-tick design, with revolutionary deviation from el-cheapo shared bus and direct-mapped caches. So, what is so revolutionary in P4 that will allow it to reach new heights in system performance? The length of pipeline increased to absurd? The "high-bandwidth" quad-pupmed bus when everyone knows that it is the bus latency that holds system performance? Trace cache with yet-to-be-proven advantages in real life against well-known disadvantages?

To: fyodor_ who wrote (19828)	11/20/2000 2:29:55 PM
From: TechieGuy-alt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<font color=red>Pentium 4 Ships: A Disappointment at 1.5GHz</font> Here is another headline. This one from pcworld- a more main stream website (for those that claim that regular joe's don't read Tom's and Anand's). http://www/pcworld.com TG