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: Elmer who wrote (125345)	1/18/2001 12:18:45 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer, <Can anyone come up with a theory as to why SMP just doesn't work for AMD?> The short answer: It's a LOT harder than it seems. Intel was dabbling with SMP way back in the classic Pentium days. My guess is that AMD underestimated the effort involved in going to SMP. No big surprise considering that almost every high-end platform out there (Merced, UltraSparc, Alpha, PowerPC) has historically suffered severe schedule slips. Have you noticed AMD's intention to get to 4-way and 8-way SMP in mid-2002? Think that might be yet another underestimation? Nah ... Tenchusatsu

To: Elmer who wrote (125345)	1/18/2001 12:20:58 AM
From: Andrew Shih	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "AMD will need .13u to catch Intel's .18u process in terms of performance" Would you agree that a 1.2 Ghz Athlon DDR is relatively similar to a 1.5 Ghz P4 in performance? Would you agree that a 1.5 Ghz Athlon DDR is similar to a 2.0 Ghz P4 in performance? In 9 months, the P4 may very well be shipping at 2 Ghz. AMD, however, is slated to be at 1.5 Ghz + in the same time frame. I believe that the most important drawback to the P4 is it's large size. Intel will need .13u to catch AMD's .18u process in terms of CPUs/wafer. Heck, it'll need 300 mm and .13u to match it's own P3 manufacturing capabilities. Of course, the other important drawback is the P4's marriage to RDRAM. Does anyone truly believe that 40 million+ RDRAM modules will be produced this year? That is what's needed just for P4 targets alone. Of course, Intel should have SDRAM support in around 6 months. That will help the cost side of the equation, but how about performance? Dual-channel RDRAM is actually not bad. SDRAM support will be a giant leap backwards in performance. -Andrew

To: Elmer who wrote (125345)	1/18/2001 12:29:15 AM
From: maui_dude	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer : Re : "Can anyone come up with a theory as to why SMP just doesn't work for AMD? With the absolute ease with which Intel brought it up for the P6 generation, FYI, it was not easy for Intel. It took them a long time and IMO, it will take AMD a long time too, and AMDs success is far from certain, even when they get it out. Maui.

To: Elmer who wrote (125345)	1/18/2001 12:41:02 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer, however they have some problems looming on the horizon. Their own .13 process has been pushed out by about a year. I am not quite sure what the original target for AMD's .13u was, but according to CC transcript, it is supposed to arrive in Q4 2001, which seems like only 2 quarters behind Intel, if Q2 2001 is still the target for Intel. Intel may have a lead, but with limited capacity, which will most likely be used up by laptops, where AMD has not been competitive. So Intel may temporarily increase their lead in area where they pretty much own 100% of the market already. As far as AMD's vs. Intel's .13u process, it's way too early to speculate, since neither has sold any production parts. As far as the .18u process, let's stick to what we have now: P3 at 1 GHz Athlon at 1.2 GHz P4 at 1.5 GHz. We can re-evaluate in the future. The claims of 1.7 GHz by AMD or 2 GHz by Intel may or may not come true. Remember the 1 or 2 speed grades beyond 1 GHz Piii, or the 1.5 GHz Palomino claim for January. Joe