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: Elmer who wrote (52617)	8/27/2001 1:28:00 PM
From: Milan Shah	Respond to of 275872

Don't you see a trend here? The P4 was the laughing stock of this thread when it first came out because it underperformed on legacy code. Slowely optimized code started to appear and at the same time the P4 was increasing in frequency at a faster rate than Athlon I have been long AMD for almost 2 years now (yup,rode it all the way up and down twice), and for the first time, I sense the fundamentals changing - 1.The rate of frequency increase in P4 is greater than Athlon. 2.The Palomino seems to have little benefit over TBird in the one important area of clock-speed. 3.The biggest handicap for P4 (RDRAM) has been fixed (VIA) or is about to be fixed (by Intel itself) 4.A flash business for which no-one seems to even be able to hazard a guess The only saving grace for AMD is mobile A4 and PowerNow!. I was all ready to do the following - sell Jan02 AMD 10 calls against my long holding, and sell Jan02 INTC 25 or 27.5 puts this morning. The idea is to switch boats from AMD to Intel and get paid for doing so. Of course, as expected, my brilliant plan got put on hold when AMD started going up this morning and INTC started going *down*. So, does anyone have an idea as to the market action? MM's pumping before a huge dump? Buy-the-rumor (AMD) and sell-the-news (INTC) conspiring? Milan

To: Elmer who wrote (52617)	8/27/2001 1:32:02 PM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

> Athlon is gasping for air on a .13u hybred process > while P4 is still in 1st gear. Ooh, that reminds me. I meant to ask about this earlier, but it sort of slipped my mind. Thankfully, I'm on a tea/coffee hybrid high right now, and it has caused me to remember my query: I have noticed that you have made several comments about AMD's Dresden process using 130nm transistors, making its upcoming leap to 130nm less than the leap that Intel took from 180nm to 130nm. I was wondering if you could elaborate on this. I was under the impression that AMD's Dresden process was pretty much on par with Intel's top level 180nm process (P858 was it? I always get confused over that and P860!). Aren't the Leffs still the same, for example? Anyway, I would really appreciate a whole slew of links that can clear me up on this. Thank you. :) -JC

To: Elmer who wrote (52617)	8/27/2001 1:33:52 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Dear Elmer: Unless you have submicron images of 1.4GHz Tbird transistors or other such proof, stop claiming that Tbird uses 0.13u process transistors. The last information I have is that AMD uses 0.18u copper having Leffs of 100nm where Intel's 0.13u copper process uses Leffs of 70nm. Thus, AMD is not using 0.13u process transistors. They are using a process 0.13u*100nm/70nm or 0.185u. That is close enough to 0.18u since both Intel and AMD are using copper in those processes. Thus, you and Wanna_bmw have yet to show any proof of your assertions of either Tbird or Palomino being made on a process smaller than 0.18u copper. What gets in your craws must be that copper for 0.18u is at least 40% faster than aluminum for 0.18u. This is one argument that Intel has been proven wrong! Since copper provides substantial benefits for 0.18u, Intel used an excuse for not using it and you both fell for it hook, line and sinker! Now Intel is stating the same for 0.13u copper SOI. Are you going to fall again for it hook, line and sinker? Pete

To: Elmer who wrote (52617)	8/27/2001 2:16:26 PM
From: jjayxxxx	Respond to of 275872

Elmer, RE: <Don't you see a trend here?> Yes, Intel won it's first round of the P4 vs. Athlon fight. <Slowely optimized code started to appear and at the same time the P4 was increasing in frequency at a faster rate than Athlon. Now we have the very first version of P4 on the original process beating Athlon overall.> Yep, the tippy top P4 finally "beats" the Athlon on a majority of benchmarks. My hat's off to Intel. <Athlon has gone through a number of revisions in it's life while P4 has had no design changes whatsoever.> Irrelevant. <The laughing stock of this thread is now the clear leader and the rate of change is increasing, not decreasing.> You may or may not be correct here. However, how can the rate of change be increasing based on one sample point (i.e. P4's first victory)? <There is a new stepping looming on a new process. Surely there must also be undisclosed design changes to go along with a newer faster Copper process and larger L2. Athlon is gasping for air on a .13u hybred process while P4 is still in 1st gear. The Scumbria's of this world simply didn't understand the P4 design and how it would scale.> Hyperbole aside, that is why in my post I said "The big question is, how long can AMD remain competitive in this game before hammer arrives? Is the 2 GHz P4 Intel's first step "away" from AMD in a series of strides to come?" <You ain't seen notin yet.> Exactly. <g> JJ