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: Bilow who wrote (52453)	8/24/2001 11:22:17 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 275872

I haven't read all the posts over here. Is there a time at which you admited that AMD did have the technically superior product? Well here it is again in case you missed it: AMD had the technically superior product from the point where CuMine topped out at 1GHz until the introduction of P4. In addition, AMD obviously had better binsplits from about 800MHz on up. AMD's limits on Athlon volume argue strongly that Athlon yields are poor. A fab the size of Dresden should be producing at close to 15 million Athlons a quarter. The absence of a large ondie L2 version for MP also suggest yield problems. If you want to argue that Athlon must have been technically superior from the start because it allowed Athlon to scale better than CuMine, I will use the same argument in support of P4. My expectation is that the gap in frequency and performance will continue to widen. Northwood with 512K L2 will get a significant performance boost and who knows what else has been improved? Intel has also said the FSB speed will increase. Each new application that comes out that has been optimized for P4 shows a clear performance advantage, even on the original core on .18u. That's why I think P4 is clearly the superior design at this point. EP