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: Joe NYC who wrote (43764)	6/11/2001 1:03:07 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: Why would AMD produce a single Tbird I think the big wild card at this point is whether or not AMD can get high volume 1.2GHZ to 1.3GHZ morgans out of Austin. If they can, then 30% market share a year from now is likely - and so are rising ASPs. If not, AMD is back to being a nice little company that makes good money with its one competitive FAB. Regards, Dan

To: Joe NYC who wrote (43764)	6/11/2001 1:19:58 AM
From: ptanner	Respond to of 275872

Joe, Re: "Why would AMD produce a single Tbird, when the risks of Palomino bugs becomes insignificant" Possible chipset/existing mobo incompatibilities with Palomino? Like when AMD tried to transition from slot to socket and we heard about KX133 problems. And wasn't there also a large overhang of slot motherboards? The ability of existing mobos to run Palominos hasn't been covered much: Tom's found one worked but most didn't, Gigabyte published list of about ten that would run with a BIOS update. -PT PS: I think the transition should be fast but why were the first mobile Durons from Dresden and apparently full Palomino cores with less cache active? Were they salvages or cripples?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (43764)	6/11/2001 10:49:02 AM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>Why would AMD produce a single Tbird, when the risks of Palomino bugs becomes insignificant - say in Q4 2002? Palomino is a significantly better core than Tbird, with a negligeable increase in die size. (the same on the Duron / Morgan side).< To begin with, AMD has till now revealed no plans to produce Palomino at Fab25. Designing a variant of Palomino to be produced at Fab25 would require scarce engineering resources. They already are producing TBird at Fab25. Additionally, There is reason to suspect that, with a few more tweaks of their Fab25 process, they can match the peak speed grade of desktop Tualatin with TBird alone, desktop Palomino would take AMD well beyond the peak speed grade of desktop Tualatin. The lineup by mid-H2 2002 should be: Morgan versus C3/C4 and possibly Celeron. Appaloosa and TBird versus desktop Tualatin. TBird matching desktop Tualatin's L2 cache while Appaloosa exceeds its peak speed grade and consumes less power at the same level of performance (for most applications). Desktop Barton between desktop Tualatin and desktop Northwood (possibly versus residual Willamette). Desktop Clawhammer versus desktop Northwood.