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 (138005)	6/24/2001 12:42:22 AM
From: whortso	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "Clearly there are diminishing returns without SOI - just as AMD, IBM, and Motorola have been claiming" Dan, Someone said this is all a joke and nobody can be this stupid. They were right weren't they Dan? You are just making a joke, right? The Whort

To: Dan3 who wrote (138005)	6/24/2001 2:50:33 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan-O, nice try at the FUD, and I didn't spend a lot of time on it like you did, but: PIII .13 Micron Aluminum 1130MHZ -> 1.45v 19.4 Amps Typical power 27.9 Max power N/A Voltage down 17%, current down 14% .13 PIII is copper not Al, so what else in your analysis is wrong? Now Intel: (.25 part has separate listing for power used by 512K cache: 1.6 watts - cache power use clearly isn't a major issue) That's wrong. The fastest ones, which are the best comparison, use 2.05 volts, draw 1.45 amps = 2.97 watts. PIII .18 Micron Aluminum 1130MHZ -> 1.75v 22.6 Amps Typical power 37.5 I see 1.8 volts @ 23 amps on page 27 of DC specs for 1.13 GHz, 0.18. Enough flawed stuff already, caught 3 errors in your favor, making Intel look worse. Wasting my time on this. Ciao, Tony