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: tcmay who wrote (135162)	5/15/2001 5:51:47 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tim, by the way, welcome to the thread, and good response to Pete's points. Tenchusatsu

To: tcmay who wrote (135162)	5/16/2001 1:57:24 AM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 186894

Dear Tim: On your response to point 2: It has been definitely shown that AMD has down binned parts to get sufficient volume to ship a particular bin at a required date. Intel has done this two ways, first just like AMD has done it, and in deliberately not making high enough bins for a product (mostly in the Celeron arena). The second method is in direct contradiction to your claims that they would always bin at max for financial reasons. They have downbinned for segmentation and marketing reasons. On your response to point 4: That is complete BS. I have yet to see a CPU last in an active system that long. Besides that says nothing of the argument that CPUs value diminishes greatly in less than 2 to 3 years, so why worry about things that shorten life from 300 to 200 years. Besides many of the other parts in the system will fail in less than 20 years (reduction of capacitance in electrolytic caps being a common lifetime problem in the 10 to 20 year range). The example I cited the CPU was probably OK, but the chipset was dead (bad HD controller). Lastly, if error reduction is key, use of ECC memory and tasks to check FPU and CPU accuracy on a regular schedule would be required. Far too many people fail to check that on benchmarks, and other things. Heck, in most business systems, this is not done on a regular basis for mission critical systems (accounting systems based on double entry system self check somewhat, but that still leaves a lot to be desired)(my Numerical Analysis education is showing up here). Without knowing the exact test vectors between bins and the procedure followed by Intel (or AMD) to determine, if a certain CPU is in one bin or the other, it is very difficult to take this further. On your response to point 6: One of the checks I do is to compare that the same input produced the same output between the overclocked point and the normal point. When it differs even in the LSB, I take it that the processor is being overclocked too much. Stable to me means that the answers are always the same. This is not true, when you get close, and is a good reason for the 1MHz FSB steps on more overclocking friendly MBs. Now if the usage is strictly game playing, I run at one speed and if its a mission critical app, I run at a different speed. In either case, I back off from the highest stable speed by some number (typ 5% for games and 15% for mc apps). For my Tbird, 5% is 1425, 15% is 1275, and 20% is the rated speed 1200. Pete