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 (135680)	5/21/2001 1:58:11 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

We've been focusing on the latter half of #2, but isn't the former enough to make you think "what a sleazy trick". OEMs can claim they're selling a 1.7GHz CPU knowing full well the throttle will kick in due to their cheap(er) thermal solution. And this is not being disputed, as far as I know, since Intel actually says that it is precisely their intention to enable this sort of thing. Intel talks about "lower cost thermal solutions" being allowed by the implementation of Thermal Monitor. What do they mean "lower cost"? Lower than what? Lower than higher cost systems? I see nothing lower cost in these systems. What I see is a conventional cost thermal solution (heat spreader/heat sink/fan) It is clear to me that what they really mean is that a proper thermal solution design that would negate the need for Thermal Monitor would be a prohibitively expensive one. What is your GUESS of what a thermal design system would look like that would not require the use of Thermal Monitor? i.e. one that is designed to the maximum, theoretical processor power envelope. How would if differ from the conventional technique they are using now?? THE WATSONYOUTH