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: pgerassi who wrote (142337)	8/29/2001 11:33:26 AM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Fell for the Intel dog and pony show, hook, line and sinker again? Perhaps you just want them to do the "Psycho" act to you in your portfolio (shower) again. Pete, I feel sorry for you at this point... you're really starting to sound bitter. Let me lay a few facts on you for your consideration... Fact 1: demonstrations at IDF have generally preceded the production part by roughly nine months to one year. That's held true for the 1GHz P3 (which didn't hit volume until about this time last year... boutique launch not withstanding), the Pentium 4 itself, and the 2.0GHz P4. You're the one that's so fond of quoting Intel history... why ignore these precedents by calling them a dog and pony show??? (Besides, while I'm sure Dr. Barrett has a dog, he raises horses, not ponies...) Fact 2: Intel is currently 600MHz ahead of anything AMD has produced, and the 1.4GHz part can barely stay even on the most favorable benchmarks. Even the most stalwart AMD supporters have said that Intel has the "overall performance crown" with the 2.0GHz P4... (Now I wonder how they're going to convince Jerry to take the mythical trophy out of it's case????) Fact 3: By demonstrating a 3.0GHz P4 at full load, Intel has demonstrated the capability and robustness of their 0.13 micron process. This raises the bar for AMD significantly. (I just wish they'd run the SPEC benchmarks for snickers and giggles.) Fact 4: There are clearly issues remaining with the Palomino, read the latest from Tom: tomshardware.com "The next Athlon, which besides still remains nameless (It won't be 'Athlon4', but it may be 'AthlonXP'), will use the 'Palomino' core, as we all know. The 'Palomino' core is currently available as 'AthlonMP' in SMP configurations and as 'Mobile Athlon4' in notebooks. Its launch as normal desktop processor has been expected for weeks now, but we will have to wait a bit longer, since AMD found some issues with Palomino running at 133 MHz (266 MHz DDR) FSB on many motherboards, specifically on those with VIA north bridges. There won't be any 100/200 MHz FSB Palomino-Athlons, so that AMD requires that all future Palomino-motherboards have their LCL-filters (for the INCLK bus signals) altered, which won't make motherboard makers happy and which will take some time." Fact 5: The situation is so desperate at AMD, they're essentially going to the PR system (which has been an unmitigated failure for every company that's ever tried it). Again at Tom's: tomshardware.com "This time is required anyhow, because the new Athlon won't be specified by its clock speed anymore. AMD is having very rigorous plans. It starts with the printing on the chip. Future Athlons will be specified by 'MODEL' numbers. For instance a Palomino-Athlon that runs at 1.4 GHz will be MODEL 1600, because AMD considers Palomino 1.4 GHz to be at least as fast as a Pentium 4 1.6 GHz. The printing on the chip will be 'A1600 .....', even though its a 1400 MHz part only. The same is valid for motherboards and their POST. A new BIOS Writer's Guide prohibits the BIOS from ever displaying the true core frequency of Palomino! It has to display the MODEL number instead. Unfortunately, H. Oda's WCPUID still reports the actual clock frequency and even WindowsXP is still reporting the clock rather than the MODEL number. It is unlikely that AMD can force Microsoft into changing WindowsXP code, now that it has just gone Gold." Tom goes on to say: "OEMs are already voicing their concerns. They are afraid that customers who bought a MODEL 1600 could sue the PC-maker once they discovered that the processor inside is only running at 1400 MHz. It might not come to that, but the introduction of MODEL-numbers instead of real clock frequency will create a lot of confusion. I hope that AMD will reconsider." It sounds like AMD is treading on ever thinner ice with this one, and I personally wouldn't want to be in their position. Instead of carving a new path with the K7, AMD is going back to the old, "our chip is just as good as their chip at this frequency" cliche. In other words, their own chip speed is couched in the speed of the competition. It's a bad marketing concept. With the release of the Northwood, things can only get worse, especially since their own Palomino has been delayed.