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 (56095)	9/23/2001 3:25:12 AM
From: bacchus_ii	Respond to of 275872

RE:"It gets difficult to keep up with your outrageous claims and silly comparisons, and eventually people get tired out." Talk for yourself please... Gottfried

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (56095)	9/23/2001 9:59:39 PM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

Wanna: But like I also said, 1.6GHz still doesn't outpace the Athlon, which can get that fast (according to AMD) on .18u bulk si. That's despite the G5 having the same number of critical pipeline stages as the Athlon. So why can't SOI (not to mention .13u manufacturing) get it any faster than that? I pretty much agree with you in this latest discussion with Dan3. However, in the above statement, you are falling head first into a trap&#133 Comparing Athlon frequencies to G4/G5 frequencies is a not "fair" - even taking the number of critical stages into account. The two architectures are completely different. Their IPCs are different, etc. If you made an 8-wide (issue) 20-stage processor and a 4-wide 20-stage processor, which one would you expect to run at the highest frequency? -fyo