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: Joe NYC who wrote (83110)	6/20/2002 8:48:07 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I think die size had little to do with the 256K Tbred decision and yields had a lot to do with it. AMD has always had trouble designing large caches. I have no clue why, but consider this history: K6-3 - AMD could never get yields up on this baby and cacheless K6-2 scaled 100 MHz faster Mustang - cancelled because of "no demand" Palomino - wasn't it originally going to have 512K? TBred - they re-laid-out the Palomino so the core logic could remain the same for both 256K and 512K versions, and now never made a 512K version. Clawhammer - some or many of the samples are 256K, although I think AMD said the Sledgehammers they ran were 1Meg. I am amazed that the 256K didn't seem to slow it down at all. Petz