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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (139719)	7/19/2001 1:39:58 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

The die size argument has been used in the past to demonstrate the "superiority" of AMD's K6-2 over anything Intel had at the time. This was around late 1998. Intel's Celeron (the one with L2 cache, not the initial cacheless version) had a die size of 140 mm2. In comparison, K6-2 had a die size of 81 mm2. The 'Droids argued that because of this, AMD could produce two K6-2 CPUs for every one Celeron that Intel produced. Therefore, according to their reasoning, AMD could afford to price their products much lower than Intel's equivalent. It really depends on how large the performance delta is. Right now, I'm impressed Intel's margins are solid given the size of the P4... it's truly a tribute to Intel manufacturing. Right now the performance delta between the K7 and P4 is small... the P4 is really just starting to shine. In the coming months that will grow, and it will truly become a P2 vs. K6-2 scenario again... with the Tualatin "celerons" keeping the price pressure on...

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (139719)	7/19/2001 2:03:34 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RE:"It amazes me to see that the same old die-size argument is being raised again, because indications are that the Pentium 4 is making life very tough for Athlon, despite the fact that the P4 die covers almost twice the area. History is repeating itself." It's all about Mhz...you know the rest. If you don't believe Mhz sells (TM)...think again.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (139719)	7/19/2001 4:27:46 PM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

>Intel's Celeron (the one with L2 cache, not the initial cacheless version) had a die size of 140 mm2.< Are you sure of this? I have read several places that the die size of the Celeron was 154mm2. Maybe you should submit a correction to this chart. users.erols.com Anyway, the K6-2 was a superior processor, if floating point wasn't needed. And, if AMD would have bothered to have redesigned it for six copper layers at 0.18-micron it could be quite good even today. As for floating point, with the K6-2+ being produced using SOI and copper interconnects at 0.13-micron, I doubt if many consumers would notice, even for gaming. Alas, AMD seems to prefer riding a single core, just like Intel.