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: wanna_bmw who wrote (163607)	4/6/2002 3:13:55 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

wanna_bmw, Gosh, I was hoping you would have a better comeback than that. Last month I learned Intel having huge amounts of leakage currents was a "good" thing. I was expecting to learn that long errata lists are why Intel processors are more reliable. Steve

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (163607)	4/6/2002 4:46:39 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

"Just proof that AMD lies on their errata lists" Not necessarily. Intel tends to lay things out at a lower level than AMD does, the "individually hand-crafted transistor" approach as opposed to the "tinkertoy" approach. The benefit of doing that is they tend to have a smaller die, lower power and likely can squeeze more out of a given architecture on a particular process than AMD can. The downside, there is going to be more errata because it's harder to verify. Most of the errata from either company are minor. Something like the Pentium FDIV bug are notable due to their rarity.