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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (124749)	1/12/2001 8:38:51 AM
From: f.simons	Respond to of 186894

A nice critique of P4, from one of the few writers on the web who actually knows something about CPU design. Scumbria- I was actually reading the link with great interest until the author called Intel marketers "scumbags" and called for a boycott of all Intel products with the possible exception of Celerons. It is hard to credibly make the case that no Intel product is any good. He failed to do so. Once his bias showed so clearly, the article was no longer very interesting. Frank

To: Scumbria who wrote (124749)	1/12/2001 10:16:32 PM
From: wily	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, the emulators article is incredible for the lucid historical compression. Regarding the P4, he says that they had to cripple it to make it manufacturable within reasonable cost limits, i.e., they had to lower the transistor count. He also says that the processor is designed to benefit from a large cache. Won't these problems be solved when they start making it on the .13um process? Intel anticipates a 2MB cache on that process (if I am interpreting this right -- I don't remember the audio part): frontiernet.net