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: dale_laroy who wrote (38423)	5/6/2001 11:49:14 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Why would any top tier vendor be interested in basing a server on a DP processor with just 256K L2 cache? Palamino's 64 byte cachline length puts half the load on the memory bus that Foster will with its 128 byte cacheline length. If Palamino keeps Athlons victim cache, the load is close to a third. A 256K cache palamino will have performance characteristics similar to those of a 512 to 768K cache Foster. A palamino with 512K cache would be as "server friendly" as a 1 meg cache Foster. INTC has been having trouble shipping their large cache chips at higher speeds. If (and its a big IF) AMD can come out with even a 512K cache Palamino running at more than 1GHZ, they could have a very compelling product. Keep in mind that most of the "Xeons" Intel has been selling at speeds faster than 700MHZ have been 256K cache parts. A 256K L2 cache Foster can track 2K memory locations, while a 256K L2 cache Athlon can track 6K cache locations. If Intel has the same trouble with large cache Fosters that it has been having with coppermines other than 256K L2 chips, it may be Foster that Compaq decides to be "not interested in" for servers. Regards, Dan

To: dale_laroy who wrote (38423)	5/7/2001 12:29:56 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: "And I would guess that neither Gateway nor IBM are either. Why would any top tier vendor be interested in basing a server on a DP processor with just 256K L2 cache? " Touche' !! I have been asserting the same point for many months. Re: "they will not achieve any significant penetration into the server market until Sledgehammer." That's a stretch !! AMD has announced multiple delays - and the first SludgePumpers won't be available for over 18 months. By that time, do you know what the competitive landscape will look like?