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 (169735)	8/21/2002 6:03:04 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

A ninth metal layer and 400k more transistors seem to be the major change. I'm willing to bet that a lot more rerouting of speed paths were involved, too... Nine metal layers has GOT to be cutting into the profit margins. Each additional layer involves additional costs, so jumping from six at 0.18 micron to nine at 0.13 has got to hurt somewhere...

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (169735)	8/22/2002 1:31:41 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Wanna_bmw - I remember your post from yesterday about Ali Chin predicting a performance drop when enabling hyperthreading. I ran across this infoworld article which seems to disagree: "The performance advantages of hyperthreading are undeniable. Our tests of a hyperthreading-enabled Intel Xeon DP server showed, on average, a 45.71 percent increase in SQL transaction performance and a 31.13 percent increase in three-tier Web application performance, versus the same system with hyperthreading disabled[a P4]." infoworld.com Our AMDolt friends don't want to know what Hyperthreading will mean for Prescott. EP