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: combjelly who wrote (19829)	11/20/2000 2:36:00 PM
From: TechieGuy-alt	Respond to of 275872

Those people perpetuating the PPro vs P-II fantasy do not know the facts of the case as they were. PPro was an excellent processor- just ahead of its time. Intel did not focus on 16 bit code performance- just 32bit. At that time 16 bit code was the rule rather than the exception. Additionally the multichip module die caused frequency scaling problems and yield issues (the entire chip could not be tested till the MCM was assembled). There are no such issues here. All relevant code being tested is already 32 bit and there is no code transition taking place. The P4 does not ship with some unmanufacturable dual cavity design (that the PII solved). If the P4 design is a dog, there is no (easily) changing it. Intel's only hope is raw Mhz scaling. But what with Elmer's "secret" "inside" mail about the 1.6 release coming to naught, who knows how this puppy will scale with its 2 cycle L1 cache (not to mention the 2X "net-burst" integer unit). TG