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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (128123)	2/22/2001 9:59:28 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Ten, That handful can only grow, especially as Pentium 4 volumes grow and as the P4 platform drives down into the mainstream. That is true, because when you are at the bottom, the only way to go is up. Too bad that P4 is twice the die size of Athlon, and Intel tied it exclusively to dual-channel RDRAM. (Probably one of the dumbest decisions ever made in the semiconductor industry.) And then there is Merced! Scumbria

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (128123)	2/23/2001 12:16:59 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

T. Well, at least we can agree on two things: 1) 64-bit adoption has nothing to do with 32-bit legacy performance (despite the claims to the contrary made by AMD marketing) 2) The mainstream migration to 64-bit won't be necessary for a long, long time Agreed, with one exception - AMD will have a CPU with both 64 and 32 bit performing well, which happens to be an ideal choice for the long (5+ year) transition to 64bit. The Willamette team did not screw up. They made the right choices given market conditions and the fact that the price/performance ratio could have been even worse on 0.18u. They also recognize that improving performance without specific support from software is a lost cause. The P6 core already performs very well on legacy apps. Why design another P6, except for mobile and value? Little AMDroid logic here. Performance is not needed in areas where Intel can't deliver it. I'll bet that Elmer, Semiconeng, and I know more about what to expect from Intel than you do. But there's no way I can back up that statement, so let's leave it at that. From the past comments of Intel insiders it seems they are no better or worse at assessing the current situation or predicting what will happen in the future than anybody else on this BBS. Joe