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: fingolfen who wrote (136581)	6/4/2001 2:49:45 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Athlon is not, however, going to keep up with the Northwood Overclockers are finding that chips from the most recent Thunderbird stepping are running 1.6GHZ to 1.7GHZ with a good heatsink and fan. Palamino is expected to run about 20% faster, meaning that next quarter's .18 Athlons should have peak binsplits around 1.7GHZ and overclock to 2.1GHZ with a good heatsink and fan. This is pretty close to what P4 does on .18 in terms of nominal clock speed. There have also been some indications that P4s faster than 1.7GHZ will spend a lot time clock throttled, regardless of cooling. At the same clock, single channel SDRAM Athlons and Coppermines perform about 20% better than P4. DDR Athlon vs. SDRAM P4 will have Athlon outperforming identically clocked P4 CPUs by at least 40%, possibly as much as 50%. That's the kind of IPC performance failure that just about killed Celeron, until the chip was redesigned to improve IPC. And it killed winchip dead. If a chip gets the reputation that it's a fraud, it becomes very difficult to sell. If P4 gets the reputation that it runs about half as fast as the equivalent Athlon, and that it clock throttles down to less than 1.5GHZ under load, even with oversized heatsinks and fans installed, P4 will be in big trouble as a product family. The .18 Athlons shipping later in the year support SSE which makes it much harder for Intel to come up with gimmicked benchmarks (that largely indicate whether or not the chip supports SSE). And more and more buyers have learned that P4 performs poorly on virtually all benchmarks that weren't carefully tuned against a P4 to make it look better than it is. Dan