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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: andreas_wonisch who wrote (43417)	6/8/2001 1:56:33 PM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 275872

Or is the difference just due to driving more Transistors on Palomino? Just my thought on it. I don't think we should read to much into yet. M.

To: andreas_wonisch who wrote (43417)	6/8/2001 1:58:58 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Andreas, <Are you hinting at binsplit problems with Palomino?> I have heard about mind boggling Mustang benchmark numbers in August of last year. And we haven't seen volume production on Palomino yet (the low volume laptop and MP launch doesn't count). Palomino was also supposed to debut at voltages significantly lower than Thunderbird and more recent data points clearly suggest that is not the case. If Palomino is in fact binning well and yielding well, AMD should have cut over the production to Palomino by now. It makes no sense to keep going with Thunderbird if Palomino is performing per expectations (8% die size penalty is not a big deal given all the other advantages the die offers) Don't you think there is something is wrong with the picture? Chuck

To: andreas_wonisch who wrote (43417)	6/8/2001 2:44:07 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Are you hinting at binsplit problems with Palomino? That doesn't make much sense, considering a 1.4 GHz MP Palomino is due in 2-3 weeks. Am I imagining it, or is it entirely possible that a chip could require slightly higher voltage while consuming significantly less wattage? From what I recall of high school physics, if the current were a bit lower on average, this could easily be the case. Or is it that no one is disputing the lower power consumption of the palomino, but that higher voltage is necessaily correlated with less frequency headroom? Anyhow, the differences (1.5/1.4) and (1.8/1.75) hardly seem worth getting that excited about. Doug