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: wanna_bmw who wrote (53505)	8/31/2001 11:11:53 PM
From: porn_start878	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

They launched at 600MHz, and later released a 733MHz chip that had lower than expected yields Nice try, really! But mind you : coppermine was a radically new chip, and integrating a 7 cycle latency L2-cache was a huge contest. The cache alone, IMO, explains the problems Intel had. Tualatin is no more than a shrink. AMD has proven itself capable of optimizing steppings both with the athlon (from 600 to 800 on .22µ Al, from 750 to 1.1 on .18µ Al and from 1000 to 1.5-1.6GHz on .18µ Cu) and K6-2 (which went from 300 to 550MHz). Now look at .18µ k6-2+... it barely goes 10-15% faster than the .25µ part, and AMD's Austin Al process isn't Intel's but still is one of the most aggressive in the industry. If we see 1.8GHz Tualatins or celeratins then we will see 1.3-1.4 coppermines or celerymines, or a 20-30% increase in apples to apples comparison. Just remember that Intel demoed the 1.5GHz Pentium 4 in Spring of 2000, and despite the doubt that it would launch that high, it did 9 months later. In the fall, they demoed 2.0GHz, and despite doubt that Intel could get it to run stably at that speed, they did one year later. Now, they've demoed a 3.0GHz Pentium 4 that runs heavily CPU intensive tasks without failure, and a 3.5GHz Pentium 4 that was able to reach its speed, even if only briefly Here I pull my hat at Intel. I was one of the most skeptical of P4 scalability and Intel proved me wrong. But my reasoning remains : compare apples to apples. Overclock the current .18µ P4 to its maximum potential at normal voltages and compare it to the SAME chip on .13µ. I have no doubt Intel could demo a 2.3GHz .18µ P4 right now... 2.3*30% = 3.0GHz. Max