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: hmaly who wrote (75645)	3/26/2002 6:59:36 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

hmaly, Re: "The big die theory had less to do with better performance and efficiency than starving Intels competitors of resources (big fabs cost a lot of money) and supposed process superiority. (Only Intel has the ability to make big die chips) If you have a efficient design, and it still requires a big die, then you would be right. If you have a P4, which at almost twice the size of Tbird, still has a hard time keeping up performance wise,Tbird should win in the marketplace, because it can be produced cheaper and has better price/performance." Relating this to Hammer - didn't Sanders say that it would have 64M transistors? That would be greater than the Pentium 4, yet AMD manages a much smaller die. It sounds to me like Intel could use greater density to be more competitive. Unless, of course, the lower density is intentional to avoid certain heat issues.... wbmw

To: hmaly who wrote (75645)	3/27/2002 1:42:55 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

hmaly, "what percentage of people need a 2 ghz computer" It does not matter how many. What does matter that the particular segment holds a performance crown. It makes people feel like belonging to the elite class even if they own a crappy-performing P4-1400/SDRAM, and this fact alone allows for much higher CPU prices for _ALL SEGMENTS_. "will have a 40% IPC advantage over P4, which should be enough to get that clear undisputed lead in IPC." We will need to see this "undisputed lead". I have my opinion that it will barely maintain a parity in performance with Intel offerings. "but doesn't the 20-25% IPC improvement in Hammer disprove that statement." See above. "Wouldn't the cpu designers follow big iron in designing more parallelism in, and 2 cores as well as bigger caches" Two cores would require a bigger die too, would not they? "Tbird should win in the marketplace, because it can be produced cheaper and has better price/performance." Maybe it should, but it is not what is happening. And again, very few here can count well, so the price/performance ratio gets never properly calculated in minds of most PC buyers. "I think AMD small die theory, isn't so much about die size as much as about efficiency" I found it strange that nobody picked up on my thoughts about inherent die size limitations and therefore about limited shrink scalability... "that when computers become commoditsized.." This seems to be again a common fallacy. We have not seen any evidence that the commodization is happening. Quite to the contrary, former CPU design houses are going belly up, only two remains standing in the x-86 PC segment, out of 5-6 in the past (correct me please on this number). Regards, - Ali