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: Yousef who wrote (75574)	3/26/2002 11:32:05 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Yousef: And you supposed process guys forget the most important thing, the design of the product being manufactured. It has a higher beta to the performance than the process it runs on. You can have a great process but, if the design stinks, both look bad. Case in point is the Itanium, the process provided good P3s, but Itanium stunk in both performance and demand. Another case in point, Alpha had great performance given the process it was manufactured on. A great design can make up large differences in process capabilities. I seriously doubt that Intel's defect density is that much better than AMD's. So all of the posturing your doing must be because the design being manufactured stinks and rightly , you do not want the process people to get unfairly blamed. Besides, you are the one who claimed that Athlon wouldn't be much faster than 300MHz and AMD released a processor on that process that ran 1GHz. Your being off by over 233% makes your interpretations quite suspect. And the smaller die did provide more performance and capability as AXP and AMP are faster overall on 0.18u than anything Intel has produced at the same level either P3 or P4. Thus that big die didn't gain much if not, lost some over the more capable P3. Pete