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: survivin who wrote (53238)	8/30/2001 3:01:48 PM
From: Tony Viola	Respond to of 275872

Surv, >Kohout explained that Intel missed the point when it designed its Intel Pentium 4 chip, which for the first time departed from Intel's own x86 processor architecture to a new architecture Intel named Epic. Well, if Ms. Kuhout of AMD said this, she really got it wrong. EPIC is Itanium, not P4. AMD can't even get it right in print (although must reserve the benefit of the doubt that what she actually said could have been taken out of context). Tony

To: survivin who wrote (53238)	8/30/2001 3:31:39 PM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Sweet Marketing IMO. M.

To: survivin who wrote (53238)	8/30/2001 4:30:21 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Survivin, Re: "The four Athlon XP processors will sport model numbers representing their relative performance when factoring in overall system performance. For example, the new Athlon XP 1500+ chip will equal a 1.33GHz processor. The 1600+ will equate to a 1.4GHz chip, the 1700+ will correspond to a 1.47GHz chip, and the 1800+ will equal a 1.53GHz processor, according to AMD." You know, these numbers are conservative enough that Intel may not even call the foul. Maybe this is AMD's intention, to have a system where the big gorilla doesn't mind them playing catch-up. I'd almost call that a good idea. It makes up a little for AMD's lack of frequency, while not making it too obvious that AMD is still going for high end market share. wanna_bmw

To: survivin who wrote (53238)	8/30/2001 5:47:07 PM
From: dale_laroy	Respond to of 275872

>Kohout explained that Intel missed the point when it designed its Intel Pentium 4 chip, which for the first time departed from Intel's own x86 processor architecture to a new architecture Intel named Epic.< Are you really going to believe that a source that confuses P4 with Itanium has a clue?