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: Dan3 who wrote (137918)	6/21/2001 11:59:39 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

>>Intel spent $3,500 million dollars to be able to produce the tualatin. In return, it got a 20%+ reduction in power, a substantial increase in IPC, and, most important, it can at least slow AMD's entry into the mobile market They were going to spend the money anyway to get 0.13 up. >>The 1.48GHZ overclock was impressive and encouraging. But not overwhelming for two such a dramatic changes as copper and a major shrink. It'll go faster than that too. >>So - what's up with Tualatin? Next week, maybe? They aren't having yield and/or binsplit problems, are they? Stay tuned, as a long termer says on the mod thread. Lots of products coming from the major leagues of OEMs. Tony

To: Dan3 who wrote (137918)	6/22/2001 12:31:38 AM
From: maui_dude	Respond to of 186894

Dan3, Re : "Intel spent $3,500 million dollars to be able to produce the tualatin." $3.5B to produce a tualatin ? Are you counting .13u conversion cost as a cost for producing Tualatin ? With that logic, it will cost Intel $3.5 Billion for Northwood, another $3.5B for Madison, $3.5B for Foster and few billions for Itanium, Banias, Mckinley etc. The total annual cost would then be close to 3-5 times Intels Annual revenue. With this cost assumption, I can see why you seem convinced that Intel is headed for self-destruction real soon (-: Maui.

To: Dan3 who wrote (137918)	6/22/2001 1:04:39 AM
From: Robert Salasidis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The 1.45V 28 W to 1.75V 34 W assumption is based on same current, but the power requirements do increase with the square of the V as the current increases as well. There fore 40.8W is more like it (45+% more). They should be able to make some very good ultra low power CPUs with this process (and probably will do so if Transmeta gets any fresh signs of life after their current disaster)

To: Dan3 who wrote (137918)	6/22/2001 2:29:02 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Blow Hard Dan - Re: "Intel spent $3,500 million dollars to be able to produce the tualatin. In return, it got a 20%+ reduction in power, a substantial increase in IPC, and, most important, it can at least slow AMD's entry into the mobile market" No kidding !!! Why just this morning you were blowing out your A-HOLE-MOUTH that Intel got NO POWER reduction on the Tualatin ! I can only conclude that God got your mouth and your butt reversed - because nothing but SH!T seems to come out of the whole on the "top" side of your body. Paul

To: Dan3 who wrote (137918)	6/22/2001 12:05:26 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

The 1.48GHZ overclock was impressive and encouraging. But not overwhelming for two such a dramatic changes as copper and a major shrink. I love it, Dan has his lunch handed to him yesterday on similar points... ignores the debate yesterday, and then tries it again today... I would say getting almost 1.5GHz out of the P6 core at ALL is a major coup... period. That core started at ~200MHz... that's over a 7X clock speed improvement... AMD may have spent as much as $100 million dollars to redo its .18 Athlon. In return, it got a 20%+ reduction in power, a substantial increase in IPC, and, most important by far, back into the mobile market and a first ever entry into the server market. Intel spent $3,500 million dollars to be able to produce the tualatin. In return, it got a 20%+ reduction in power, a substantial increase in IPC, and, most important, it can at least slow AMD's entry into the mobile market. Wrong! Intel spent $3.5 billion in order to develop the process to produce the Tualatin, Northwood, Madison, Deerfield, etc. Get it right if you're going to attempt to be snide. It looks like it would be a nice server chip, but Intel doesn't want to embarass P4 any more than is already being done by Athlon MP, so they seem to be trying hard to keep tualatin out of the server market. Then why was the very first chip released a 1.13GHz SERVER chip??? And why is intel planing a 1.4GHz server version of Tualatin??? theinquirer.net Most interesting of all is: Where the heck are they? When breaking into a brand new market, especially during a drastic downturn, AMD still managed to have Compaq and Sony partners shipping at the launch. They even had something of a publicity stunt in which the first few thousand Compaq mobile Athlons were sold on HSN the weekend before the release . For its SMP launch, AMD had only smaller manufacturers on board - but they still had systems available for sale. Intel said the chips have been shipping in full production quantities since May... investor.cnet.com. So - what's up with Tualatin? Next week, maybe? They aren't having yield and/or binsplit problems, are they? Dan, try using that morass in your skull for some purpose other than separating your ears. The "big" Tualatin launch is not until next month for the mobile market. The only Tualatin which has been released is the server chip. July 15th to be precise if you believe Mike... theinquirer.net I honestly think the yield and binsplit on Tualatin are both exceptionally robust given that people can overclock the little darlings to almost 1.5GHz at this point. Bodes well for the headroom of the Northwood processor. 3.0GHz next year, mark my words! (Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Barrett demonstrated a 3.0GHz Northwood at fall IDF!)