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: wanna_bmw who wrote (75652)	3/26/2002 7:11:25 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

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. Got to take issue with his claim that P4 is almost twice the size of Tbird. It'll soon be less than 10% larger and already outperforms Tbird at a lower cost of manufacture. EP

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (75652)	3/26/2002 9:23:51 PM
From: brushwud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

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. Hammer has 64 KB L1s and a 1 MB L2, while Northwood has 8 KB L1s and a 512 KB L2. At six xtors/SRAM cell, that's more than 30 M transistors right there. Plus the Hammer has an integrated Northbridge. It never occurred to me that Intel was at a big density disadvantage! Just a less effective microarchitecture.