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: semiconeng who wrote (22655)	12/16/2000 6:01:56 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Most of this will likely occur well before AMD can counter with whatever they are still "developing" as the successor to T-Bird Palamino is out next quarter, maybe next month. As far as IA-64, whenever it arrives, it will still be WAY ahead of any kind of "Fake 64" Hammer. IA-64 already has dozens of support vendors The Hammer series has thousands of support vendors, since it runs X86 code at full speed. Intel will do well if it has a very fast, very smooth ramp of its .13 copper process. But no one in the industry has had a fast, smooth ramp for several years now, so the odds are probably against one here. But you never know. Dan

To: semiconeng who wrote (22655)	12/16/2000 7:32:24 PM
From: porn_start878	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Wait a minute semiconeng... As far as IA-64, whenever it arrives, it will still be WAY ahead of any kind of "Fake 64" Hammer. ... on a handful of specially selected apps; Digital failed with the Alpha, which was a relatively FAR superior design, Itanium won't have much more success. IA-64 already has dozens of support vendors, just waiting for launch to jump into the fray, in contrast, "Fake-64" has announced that Sun Microsystems is "Interested". Interested doesn't mean products. I agree that the 64bits part of the Hammer will take a lot of time to get used and useful but that'll still be a great marketing ploy... OTOH, I think the Hammer family will come right in time for the beginning of SSE2 apparition and clockspeed over 2 GHz will be well enough, especially if the clock-for-clock performance isn't as dumped as it've been on the P4. While intel is looking forward to the future of true IA-64, AMD has chosen to cling to the past. I would reformulate : While Intel is trying to be the future, AMD has chosen to live in the present. P4 is significant because at 0.13u, the speedpaths will be faster than currently available, power cunsumption will be lower, and all the scalability you could ever want will be ahead of it, instead of behind it. the i850 chipset works, Software optimizations for SSE2, DDR Support, and Multiprocessor Configurations are all going to get better. Most of this will likely occur well before AMD can counter with whatever they are still "developing" as the successor to T-Bird. I expect AMD to be in a better situation with the Palomino@.18 vs P4@.18 than they were with the T-Bird vs PIII, P4 would have been a terrific chip... but with all the stuff they cut off to shrink it (second x87 FPU, extra ALU, 16Kb L1 cache...) So, if ya step back for a second, take off those AMD glasses, and look at the big picture, Whatever mis-steps intel has made in the past couple of years, is the past. Intel is positioned well for the future, whereas AMD is not. I'll once again reformulate : So, if ya step back for a second, take off those AMD glasses, and try my Intel glasses, whatever mis-steps intel has made in the past couple of years, is the past. Intel is positioned well for what they expect to be the future, whereas AMD is well positioned in the present, and they study the past (how x86 moved from 16 to 32 bits) and listen to the present to try to be well positioned in the future. Max

To: semiconeng who wrote (22655)	12/16/2000 9:26:11 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

"I thought the issue was can intel execute flawlessly in the future, and can what it has in the pipeline make money." The issue is whether or not Intel can execute, not whether it can do it flawless or not. Yes, a P4 at 0.13 micron, possibly with some of the axed stuff put back in, could be one heck of a processor. Sorry about the qualifications, I am so aghast at the reality of the P4 that I tend to waffle around when the future is mentioned. Sure, if the P4 can scale to 2.5GHz or 3GHz in 130nm, then it could be a good chip. But we are talking about something that can only be speculated on. It is just as reasonable to speculate on a pony chip running at about the same frequencies at 130nm, it very well may happen. Sorry, I was less than impressed with the P4 running briefly at 2GHz on a 180nm process, a Tbird might have been able to do the same. I freely admit that I am very impressed with the bandwidth that the i850 can deliver. I look at x86-64 and I see an 80386 equivalent, I look at the Itanium and I see the iAPX432. When Intel says that the first generation was a proof of concept, just wait for the second version which will be the "real" Itanium, I hear an echo of a past era. The iAPX432 only had two generations... And yes, I am very dubious about VLIW-type architectures. I think they are fundamentally flawed and only have a future in niche applications. Thank you for the history of the "botched transistor" process, I was unaware of it's origins. It makes me wonder though, with Intel's deserved reputation for process control, why did it get released to mass manufacturing? Was Intel worried that far back about the Athlon? I've been following "EE Times" about the new Intel process, it looks really good. It will be interesting to see if Intel can move it to mass production on the timetable it says, and whether or not it's public dissing of SOI proves to be another mistake. Intel has great engineers, they have proven it time and again. The question is whether Barrett should be shot or hanged, though. Ropes are re-useable, but not as sure...

To: semiconeng who wrote (22655)	12/17/2000 1:44:31 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Semiconeng, <P4 is significant because at 0.13u, the speedpaths will be faster than currently available, power cunsumption will be lower, and all the scalability you could ever want will be ahead of it, instead of behind it. the i850 chipset works, Software optimizations for SSE2, DDR Support, and Multiprocessor Configurations are all going to get better. Most of this will likely occur well before AMD can counter with whatever they are still "developing" as the successor to T-Bird.> I have been one of those guys who gives P4 a lot of credit for sellability for MHz. But before you get too far on scalability one should not miss the fact that P4 is sucking wind on benmchmarks. It is not clear P4 is going to have advantage on mainstream benchmarks for any time in the near future. P4 has a nice SSE engine but all the promise of software advances to come wouldn't stop it from getting lousy reviews, don't you think? <As far as IA-64, whenever it arrives, it will still be WAY ahead of any kind of "Fake 64" Hammer. IA-64 already has dozens of support vendors, just waiting for launch to jump into the fray, ...> Prey, can you tell me when the Intel IA-64 beast will see production? And how do you define something is way ahead when the part is not even in production and when the tapeout for the next generation part is not even in Intel's control? <...in contrast, "Fake-64" has announced that Sun Microsystems is "Interested". Interested doesn't mean products. > True. But why the double standard. You know Itanium is nothing more than an announced part with uncertain production time table but that didn't stop you from spouting IA-64 is ahead. Did it? <While intel is looking forward to the future of true IA-64, AMD has chosen to cling to the past.> Both companies are looking forward ... to a part that can be "produced". Has it even occurred to you that Itanium, when released, will be a limited edition loss leader for Intel? Any idea how many IA-64 systems need to be in the market for Intel to even get close to break-even on this project? Any idea, what time frame such an event will occur. <Intel is expanding it's business beyond microprocessors, and while true, many of those businesses are currently losing money, they represent some of the anticipated high growth areas of the future. > Know of a single Intel internet business that is even close to being breakeven (assuming it has not been shut down already)? Checked the status of Chips & Technologies, Level One, and DSP Communications? Ever wondered what C&T's share is in the graphics market, Level One's in Gigabit Ethernet, DSP communications in CDMA? <Once again, one company is looking to the future, the other clinging to the past.> Once again semiconeng showsup when things start to look good for Intel. Only to leave when things don't pan out for his wishes. Who can forget your bravado about the 1.13G PIII launch and your disapperance from the thread on its recall? I wish you would stick to an area that you know, like process, and look good. Chuck