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: TechieGuy-alt who wrote (199276)	5/29/2006 1:41:26 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

So- in effect you may have a real world situation where Intel is ~20% fast on average for ~6-12 months and then AMD catches up. And you MAY have a situation where AMD cannot keep up with Intel process generations, and perhaps design cycles, too, as looks to be unfolding now. As a side note, it has been 3 years since the K8 launched. Why the heck wasn't the K8L ready to go NOW? Did they start on the K8L design only after Intel previewed NGA features at last August's IDF? Also don't forget the fact that Intel's "Core" architecture is very very cache dependent. Compared to performance/sq mm- it s very inefficient compared to AMD's architecture. Actually, Core's performance is even higher per sq mm, as AMD is stuck at 90nm vs. Intel's Core2 parts at 65nm. Core2 is about a LOT more than cache. In fact, really, the cache is there to make up for the lack of an IMC-- to improve average latency. You might want to review Johan's article on the Core2 architecture.