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: Joe NYC who wrote (155968)	1/17/2002 12:46:46 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jozef, Re: "Thanks for the link. Good observation. If the scaling will cause Palomino to lag, AMD can adjust the formula with Thoroughbred. It does not look like they are doing it though, per Mike Magee: 213.219.40.69 He speculates there the article about the possibility of increasing the size of L2." Much of this article doesn't seem to make sense to me. Re: "The XP-2500 using Thoroughbred will indeed launch in Q2 of this year but it seems the amount of on die level two cache is not decided - meaning it's likely to be higher." Not decided yet? Jozef, cache is not something you decide on last minute. You have to redesign all the circuitry around it, and make room so that it fits inside the core without changing the shape of the die (which would create wasted space, and a larger die size). Then you have months of testing and validation before you can be sure that all your speed paths are secure, and not causing any timing violations. Cache size is something you figure out more than a year before launching the product. This claim also contradicts the claims of another AMD employee who said that Thoroughbred would be simply a shrink of Palomino. Magee's mole doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. Re: "While there will be a slight decrease in raw megahurts when AMD moves from .18 micron to .13 micron, performance is expected to jump substantially, according to our reliable source, becauseof additional gates and a better design." What is this supposed to mean? Since when does a .13u product have a decrease in launchable frequency over a .18u product. And how would AMD justify a M2500+ if this were so? Also, "additional gates and a better design" seems to suggest micro-architectural improvements, which are pretty doubtful at this point. A larger cache might mean more transistors, but it certainly doesn't create a "better design". This information is all muddled up. I don't see how anyone who knows anything about microprocessors can take it seriously. wbmw