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 (39544)	5/14/2001 10:44:57 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dale, This is almost certainly the reason, but AMD is making a mistake in not offering large cache variants simply because it leaves one final high margin refuge for Intel. If AMD were to offer large cache variants, even at volumes that would not justify their production, this would be sufficient to bring Intel's large cache Xeon prices tumbling down, which would make slashing prices on desktop processors even harder for Intel. I don't see Intel's notebook prices tumbling yet. AMD has sold 500 on HSN, doesn't really yet have a vendor for Palomino (only bto) and the only credible thing coming out of all of this is the Sony Morgan notebook. Intel will be forced to lower the notebook prices when there is a potential for AMD to ship a volume of mobile chips, which is just not the case yet. A paper launch of large L2 version, like the current mobile launch would just cause a chuckle at Intel. Joe

To: dale_laroy who wrote (39544)	5/14/2001 10:45:41 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 275872

Large cache Palominos. Would there be any real advantage of a 1 or 2 megabyte pony over say, 512k? The Xeons need a huge cache, they are sharing, at best, an interleaved 64 bit PC133(ServerWorks) or non-interleaved dual 64 bit PC133(Intel Profusion) memory bus. They need to large caches to keep the contention for memory resources to a minimum. With the 64k/64k L1 and a point to point bus, anything larger than a 512k L2 cache (and that large only if the cache is inclusive) likely would not show much, if any, performance difference.