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: semiconeng who wrote (139548)	7/18/2001 12:22:50 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Wow... great thread! Here's some great quotes from Paul: On AMD's move to Pally: "This move seems to be delayed by AMD's difficulties getting the frequency of A4s to even match T-birds. My guess is they revamped the Alpha-like clock distribution system to use less juice but they still haven't get the new scheme fully wrung out yet. Is it an omen for the future?" On relative 0.13/0.18 micron technology: "But the problem here is that Intel will likely get a bigger boost from the 0.18 um to 0.13 um transition than AMD. AMD already has copper and has been cheating down Ldrawn and Leff over the last few months to the point T-birds are practically in a 0.18/0.13 um hybrid process. I also think the P4 is much better suited to take full advantage of process shrinks than K7. At ISSCC 2001 the Alpha boys conceded that the EV6 core was running into clock rate vs transistor speed figure of merit roll-off due to interconnect effects even at the 0.18 um level. So I don't think the K7 core will benefit as much from 0.13 um as many people think. That is why Hammer is so crucial. The fact that AMD decided that the Hammer will not be made in bulk CMOS suggests that it will not match P4 in either aggressive pipelining or innovative circuit design. AMD needs a costly process fix (SOI) to even stay in the clock rate ball game." Okay, Dan, you wouldn't believe me when I said it... do you believe Paul Demonde saying the exact same thing?!?!?!??

To: semiconeng who wrote (139548)	7/18/2001 3:24:31 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Semiconeng: Dean and Paul think that 500 MHZ disadvantage at 1.7 GHz is better than a 600 MHz disadvantage at 2.4 but, in reality it is the opposite, 1.2/1.7 is smaller than 1.8/2.4. It is clock speed disadvantage relative to absolute clock since IPC multiplies and doesn't sum to clock rate. They must be bad at fractions and math overall to make such a fundamental error! They also fail to make a distinction between comparing CPUs sold in a flat environment and CPUs sold in a rising one. Its like oranges sold in a freeze and oranges sold in warm temperatures. The later gets far more money than the former but, with the first predicting a freeze for both and the later predicting good growing for both. I guess that it is the same blind spot that fools them both times. They forget to normalize the context before comparing results. Sloppy thinking! Pete