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: Charles Gryba who wrote (151822)	12/9/2001 1:55:08 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Constantine, Re: "given intel's prior record i'd say that the current socket 478 has a 1 year life span at best before the P4 needs another socket. I personally liked Intel a lot when they had the slot 1 which was around for a while." Sorry that this is your last post on the topic, but I feel it's necessary to point out that you are being contradictory. You speak of Intel's past "track record" as requiring a socket change every year or so, but then you talk about Intel's previous slot 1, which I would consider a bullet on their "track record" and you admit that it had a very decent lifetime. The problem with slot 1, though, was that it was very expensive, and since the cache was integrated on the CPU die, the slot package was rendered obsolete. Therefore, it makes sense to go with a more compact socket package, and that's what Intel did with socket-370. Their one mistake was that the package was premature, and didn't include the flip-chip technology, and after that was introduced, Celeron chips using the older PPGA technology were inoperable on the FC-PGA sockets. The socket-370 to socket-423 change was a necessary generational change, as I see it. Going from one micro-architecture to the next requires some forward thinking on Intel's part to satisfy different power requirements, EMI requirements, and any new features added. The Pentium 4 simply had more pins, too, which made a 370 pin socket ineffective. Intel's only problem here was that much of the technology was not ready before the Pentium 4 launched in 2000. Some people may have had a good point when they say Intel should have launched the first Pentium 4 in 2001 with the socket-478, and skipped socket-423 altogether. They should have also launched on the .13u process, since the .18u Pentium 4 suffered from higher power dissipation and the problems associated around that. However, I think launching the Pentium 4 at .18u and the 423 pin package was more of a political move, since Intel's .13u Tualatin would have lagged behind the competition by too much of an amount, both in core frequency, and in performance. Therefore, Intel pushed the Pentium 4. The socket change is of course an a result of pushing the technology before all of it was ready, but it seems the move turned out rather successful. The only thing that doesn't make sense in your argument is that you claim that these previous data points somehow suggest a trend whereby Intel should release more sockets at a future point that you deem one year. However, it doesn't look like you have anything logical to back that up. What is Intel creating that you believe requires a new socket? Northwood should be completely compatible with the new socket, and I see no reason why the next generation, Prescott, should be any different. Your argument is like many of the AMDroids'. You have a preconceived conclusion, and then you bend the facts to match it. You have no technical basis for your conclusion, but rather mention Intel's "track record", which you then contradict in your next sentence. Get real. Ditch the AMDroid attitude, and think for yourself for a change. wbmw