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: fyodor_ who wrote (124019)	6/17/2004 5:10:42 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Look at the frequencies. That's what bin splits are about, not semi-random AMD model numbers. AMD has gone from 2.2GHz in the 3200+ to 2.4GHz in the 3800+ with the recent launch. The 3200+ (1MB L2) was only 2GHz. But AMD has only gone from a 2.2GHz FX-51 last September to 2.4GHz now, with no imminent (next couple months) launch expected of a 2.6GHz CPU of any type. Not all that impressive considering AMD is selling 2.33GHz Barton 3200+ CPUs to HP.

To: fyodor_ who wrote (124019)	6/20/2004 1:55:31 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

fyo, another correction to your assumptions It is actually very unusual for a good process to have a wide range of binsplits out. IMO, the only reason for a 1.8 GHz part is that there are a lot of folks who don't want to pay even $200, but want 64-bit. Nearly all current output will run at 2.2 GHz. Based on market demand, AMD may also sell parts at lower speeds and lower voltages that could also be sold for higher speeds and voltages. It may also be true in Intel's case that the 2.8 GHz Prescotts would run fine at 3.2 or 3.4 GHz, but I doubt it. 3.4 GHz parts are still very rare, so why would Intel downbin any 3.4 GHz-capable parts? And, speaking of a wide frequency range, take a careful look at Intel's S-Specs at processorfinder.intel.com Do a Ctl-F search for "90 nm" and notice the following: The C0 stepping ranges all the way from 2.4 GHz (which Newegg newegg.com is selling for $121 w/free shipping, so Intel can't be getting >$110 for them!) -- up to 3.2 GHz, with a few samples running at 3.4 GHz. But then there is the D0 stepping. It runs only at 2.8 GHz, but it runs at about 1 volt. So it appears that D0 might have fixed the power problem, but retreated on the GHz problem. D0 is still rated at 89 "Intel watts," like all the other Prescotts. An Intel optimist would say that the D0 stepping just has that rating because its the "family" power rating, and that a 2.8 GHz D0-stepping Prescott really only draws 60w. If you fed a D0 stepping Prescott 1.5 volts, would it run at 3.4 GHz and draw <89 watts? I doubt it very much! If that were true, how come Intel is selling ALL D0 parts for $150 and at 2.8 GHz instead of for $500 at 3.4 GHz? No good answer to that, so the D0 stepping is probably a failed attempt to solve the power problem, which is the real reason Prescott is stuck at 3.2 GHz. Further evidence along those lines is that the Inquirer says that it will be the E0 stepping available ~September that will really be capable of 3.4 GHz easily. Petz