SI
SI
discoversearch

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: dale_laroy who wrote (134566)5/10/2001 11:19:06 AM
From: Elmer  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
Name one thing that AMD has done that is comparable to putting the 440 on allocation in order to force mobo manufactures to embrace the 820

In typical fashion you look for the most sinister explanation. The 440(BX) was manufactured on an older fab process that was scheduled to be phased out when the fabs transitioned to a more modern process. This type of thing is scheduled a year or more in advance. As it turned out, the timing was not optimal but sometimes sh*t happens. I know it's much more fun to bash Intel but sometimes things don't always have a sinister reason.

EP



To: dale_laroy who wrote (134566)5/10/2001 2:35:11 PM
From: Paul Engel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Re: "Name one thing that AMD has done that is comparable to putting the 440 on allocation in order to force mobo manufactures to embrace the 820. "

Since we're talking history here, AMD announced - I should say LIED - that their K6-2 "Late Mask Fix" was solved and fast K6-2's were indeed rolling off the lines in early 1999.

Many MotherBoard manufacturers ramped up K6-2 boards in anticipation of the flood of fast CPUS .

One month later they announced that they lied and AMD would report a loss - due to the lack of fast K6-2 product.

The MotherBoard manufacturers got stuck with obsolete K6-2 inventory - as the AthWiper was rolled out before AMD ever got their K6-2 ramped up again.

Paul