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: Ali Chen who wrote (147271)	11/9/2001 1:17:25 PM
From: fingolfen	Respond to of 186894

Being a Ph.D in chemistry does not qualify you to anything. I strongly advise you to study some basics of microprocessors design before resorting to your mockery. Ali, I'll grant you that overall microprocessor speed and performance are a sum total of numerous factors, but that is NOT was not the issue at hand. It is also my pleasure to inform you that I'm well versed in the "basics of microprocessors." Furthermore, I was not on this board in the K6-era, and I made no predictions on the ultimate speed of the K7 architecture. I am not Yousef. Did you, however, read the incredulous post to which I was responding? Allow me to phrase my "bottom line" somewhat differently to clarify my point... I first make the assumption that any processor which has been in production for over six months has reasonably optimized interconnect (i.e. no critical speed paths are artificially limiting frequency, etc.). The P4 has been churning along for roughly a year, whereas the Palomino core has been selling for at least six months. Intel is at 2GHz with the P4 running a nominally 100nm gate. Performance wise it is matched or beaten (depending on who you believe) by a 1.6GHz Athlon running a 70nm gate. To move past a 70nm gate requires very expensive, very experimental 193nm lithography. If AMD therefore tries to scale the gate further in 0.13 micron they will either be 1) unsuccessful, or 2) paying out the wazoo for the technology further reducing their profitability. Intel therefore has a LOT more frequency headroom than AMD does. Frequency is still the most important factor in determining the overall speed and performance of a processor, especially if it's pure apples to apples comparison (a 1.6GHz K7 is faster than a 1.4GHz one... model number and "quanti-analysis" not withstanding). I don't envision AMD getting past 1.8 without SOI, and the jury is out on how much SOI will buy them. AMD is also going to be paying a hefty price premium for SOI, and we're once again back to the reduction in profitability scenario. I honestly can't believe you're rushing to Dan's defense on this one. His original point was ludicrous. Yes, my Ph.D. is in chemistry, and my research then had inorganic, analytical and materials science components. That was, however, a few years ago. Oft times it's not what degree you have, but what you then go and do with that degree that makes one expert in a field. If I may be so bold, do try to learn a bit more about people before delivering a sermon and you won't find yourself preaching to the choir as much...