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: Charles R who wrote (103199)	10/17/2003 6:06:21 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: On 32-bit code Prescott is going to be an extremely good competitor. It may be very different from what you expect. At this point, Intel's prescott core is apparently limited to making Celerons because the performance is so limited. I'm sure it will get better than that over time, but it's chasing a moving target with SOI Athlons/Opterons - which are already overclocking nicely and have plenty of thermal headroom. We saw the same thing when Intel convinced itself that it could save money and hold off implementing copper - and they got left behind. 90nm on bulk silicon, so far, appears to be useful in making chips smaller therefore cheaper to FAB, but does nothing for performance or heat dissipation, so far the 90nm chips seem to be slower and hotter than their 130nm counterparts. aceshardware.com

To: Charles R who wrote (103199)	10/17/2003 7:09:54 PM
From: mozek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Charles, I have to say that I disagree on this. I think this is more like the Athlon spike because of the fact that there's not a 64-bit Windows available. Currently, AMD64 looks ready and able to stand on its own, even maintain the top spot as it scales in clock speed in the 32 bit world. The difference between it and anything Intel has yet is its ability to carry customers through the 64-bit evolution. No matter what Intel does, they're still in a tough spot long term. AMD has a good roadmap that's every bit as strong as Intel's, I personally think stronger. They've got the very low end on tap with the Geode acquisition, they've got the very high-end with Opteron, and they've got a scalable solution with A64. Intel obviously has to do something, which puts them behind by definition. One response would be the Win32-compatible 64 bit extensions. Another would be a second IA64 bit architecture likely with 64 bit support based on either AMD64 or Intanium, (concluded from Chris Jones' statement that Microsoft will support Windows 64-bit instruction sets for either AMDs or Intels existing sets as long as they don't change). IMO, the strongest thing Intel could do would be a solution that provided 64 bit extensions compatible with Win32 and also the ability to run in true 64-bit mode. Of course, while they do all this, they also have to come up with something that performs well against AMD in both 32-bit and 64-bit mode, and that looks like it could be very tough. Mike