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: wanna_bmw who wrote (147304)	11/10/2001 12:54:04 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: Look how long they delayed Palomino. A Tbred delay that long would mean they are adding a number of new performance enhancing features, and may also suggest that Hammer has slipped as well. It's interesting to consider, but it would certainly mean that Northwood would carry the performance crown for quite a few months Over the past two years, periods in which Intel was able to ship a chip that performed as well as AMD's chips have been brief. During the those same 2 years, Intel has spent $8 Billion on R&D and $14 Billion on its FABs. What is the result after two years of enormous expenditures and the launch of two new cores, one five years in development and the other 8 years in development? AMD is shipping the fastest PC CPUs presently available for Desktops, single or dual processor workstations, and single or dual processor servers. Intel has poured a Billion or more into the development and marketing of a new RDRAM based industry architecture that would favor Intel's designs and give its chips a permanent advantage in licensing costs. After 2 years of efforts, Intel is scrambling to abandon RDRAM and copy AMD's DDR platform solution. Intel is relegated to working with its existing cores for the next 3 to 5 years (or longer), while AMD has a new, higher performing, core coming out in a few quarters. Intel's last, desperate, hope is that the combination of the P4 core and its .13 copper process will put it back into the race with AMD - and it might. Maybe the awful performance of the new P4 (relative to the now "old" Athlon) is the result of a mismatch between .18 Aluminum and the needs of P4's unusual design. But there are no indications, so far, that this is the case. If P4 were a great core being held back by a poor process, it would be expected to overclock particularly well with additional cooling. But we've seen that .18 P4 runs to about 2.6 to 2.8GHZ with LN2 while .18 Palomino runs to 2.1 to 2.2GHZ. Headroom for P4 appears to be about the same as headroom for Palomino, Palomino presently outperforms P4, and Palomino is being replaced by a very different, higher performing core next year.