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 (22482)	12/14/2000 5:17:27 PM
From: TechieGuy-alt	Respond to of 275872

I wonder what phase of the design cycle is this guy talking about? If it is during the very early design phase (where one is just playing around with various "builing blocks" and bouncing ideas off one another), then it's not too bad. However, if they actually had to "cut" out designed systems- that sounds pretty bad. Why did they not have an idea as to how much space these "new and improved" innovations like 2 FP units cost in floor area and power draw? If this was done in the middle of the design to satisify some "size" or power constraints or mandates, then no doubt the performance would have suffered (hence the patchy performance of the chip). If that is the case, that 8KB 1cycle cache may not scale too well (as Scumbria has been pointing out). Maybe there is no "grand" plan behind all these numbers (8KB L0 1cycle cache etc.). Maybe, due to the midstream hatchet job, this is what the design "cascaded" to to keep the chip even viable. We still haven't seen (Elmer's ?) (and/or the Register's) "millions of 1.6 GHz and above Isrealy" P4's. Maybe they are on the way. TG