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: Elmer who wrote (135477)	5/18/2001 9:37:09 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 186894

You forgot the "we will bury you" part again, Elmer.

To: Elmer who wrote (135477)	5/18/2001 10:22:36 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Well, of all my questions to you, you only really answered one. You don't consider it an issue. My first question was: Do you think Intel intended TO HAVE to use clock throttling. In other words, do you think Intel during the design phase knew that the ALU (or whatever causes it) might cause enough localized heating to necessitate clock throttling and in spite of this, they went ahead with the design anyway? Or, was this clock throttling an "Oops" response to a non optimal design? Regarding the data sheet, are you saying that the P4 would not clock throttle if the system designers chose optimal thermal solutions and that the P4 clock throttles only because the system designers chose non optimal thermal solutions?? So, it's really their fault... not Intels???? Could you tell me what the optimal thermal solutions would be that would totally prevent clock throttling? What are the system guys doing wrong?? Regarding .13um, we are talking about .18um 1.7GHz systems. The schmucks who bought these really won't really care how fast the .13um systems are or whether or not they clock throttle. Regarding Athlons burning up, my take is there are real issues when non qualified people try to attach heat sinks to Athlons. I believe AMD incorporated a thermal diode on Palominos to prevent just such catastrophes. This is hardly the same issue as clock throttling although it will be interesting to see if AMD has to implement it at higher freq. on Palominos. Regarding Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM, Gateway, who knows what they think? Plus, what might they think if this thing really blows up in Intel's face? Might they complain then? Please review my earlier post and answer the specific questions I directed to you. I'd like to find out if you are just an Intel hack or a concerned Intel investor. THE WATSONYOUTH

To: Elmer who wrote (135477)	5/19/2001 2:42:57 AM
From: muzosi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Automatic mode is required for the processor to operate within specifications and must first be enabled via BIOS. Why don't you read the data sheet section 7.3? i am looking at it now. apparently you are having comprehension problems again. you say "What that says to me ... design less that optimal thermal solutions, should they choose to do so". where do you get this crap about any choice? please post a reference. here is a direct quote "Automatic mode is required for the processor to operate within specifications and must first be enabled via BIOS.". and unlike your crappy bold claim, this text is actually bold in the spec. i think i should repeat it here *Automatic mode is REQUIRED* for the processor to operate within specifications and MUST first be enabled via BIOS."**. now show me where it says "should they choose to do so" in section 7.3 of this document: developer.intel.com