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: NicoV who wrote (198225)	5/21/2006 11:36:32 AM
From: eracer	Respond to of 275872

Re: Basically you're claiming that Intel downbins Woodcrest. I seriously doubt that that is the case Why? Downbinning is common practice. AMD does the same with Opterons, Athlon 64s and Semprons. Intel would be much better off selling CPU's at a higher speed, if only to show that they're the performance leader again. The purpose of the 3GHz Woodcrest is regain the performance lead. If Intel sells 1.6 and 1.86 GHz Woodcrests, it's because they have enough dies that are functionally ok, but can't be run at a higher clock. Or it could just be an across-the-board attack against Opteron. I doubt every Opteron 165 is clocked at 1.8GHz just because it can't run at 2GHz or 2.2GHz reliably. Besides, it remains to be seen how competitive those parts are compared to the low end of the Opteron line (which starts only at 1.8Ghz for the dual cores) The only way a 1.6GHz Woodcrest would not be competitive with a 1.8GHz Opteron is if FB-DIMMs turn out to be a major performance hinderance. FB-DIMM latencies are supposed to be higher than DDR2, especially at lower memory bandwidth utilization, so that would work against Woodcrest in some benchmarks.