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: Dan3 who wrote (44828)	6/21/2001 9:15:45 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 275872

"than Intel gained from a a re-layout and a move from .18 AL to .13 CU." I don't think Intel touched the core much except to do what they needed to do to make the move. Most of the changes they made seem to have been on the FSB and adding another 256k to the L2 cache. What AMD did was a lot more significant. I could be wrong, but the benchmarks so far put the Tualatin a little above what you would expect from a PIII, and that could be chalked up to a better FSB. The question now is how low of a voltage it can run at, and at what speeds.

To: Dan3 who wrote (44828)	6/21/2001 11:15:01 AM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

Dan: The rule in the industry has always been, unless you are going to quadruple cache, don't bother. Doubling cache will make a trivial difference. That's not quite true - it also depends heavily on the associativity of the cache. And since Intel has a lower associativity, doubling the L2 cache might make a lot of sense (I am assuming they doubled the associativity). The specs have now been released and there is almost no difference in power consumption between .18 coppermine and .13 tualatin. You're not seeing the complete picture. Larger cache => fewer memory accesses => LESS POWER. -fyo