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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: voop who wrote (11121)5/30/2001 2:39:39 PM
From: kech  Respond to of 196717
 
Yes- that is the way I see it, Celeron vs. Pentium III. But the mystery of the number has to do with the peculiar history of the announcements. It seems that 5100 was announced first. Then China wanted a quick and dirty (or inexpensive chip depending on your perspective) with the R-UIM memory card. I think then the 5105 was announced. Why they didn't call it the 5075 I don't really know but maybe because the 50 was conidered to be more like the basic prototype such as the 3000.

The 5100 should have been called the 5300 as the 1x upgrade for the 3300 chips and the 5105 should be the 5100 as the 1x upgrade of the 3100 chips. However, perhaps because they already had announced a 5200 chip which is the base W-CDMA chip they couldn't maintain the second digit consistincy. They wanted to make it clear that the 5105 had the R-UIM card like th 5100 (even though it doesn't have the other goodies that are on the 3300 and the 5300).



To: voop who wrote (11121)5/30/2001 6:09:39 PM
From: Eric L  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 196717
 
Voop,

<< And if 5100 is more advanced, how did it get a lower number, anyway >>

Because when QUALCOMM decided that they could not make the promised sampling date for the 5100 (for several very justifiable reasons) they decided that MSM5099 just didn't fit their model nomenclature scheme. <g>

Ok. Throw a rock. I deserve it. <ggg>

- Eric -



To: voop who wrote (11121)5/31/2001 3:12:19 AM
From: Theophile  Respond to of 196717
 
duplication