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: plantlife who wrote (212042)	9/30/2006 3:54:23 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: That's not a conclusion, it's a wish. K8L is rev. H not rev. F. There were no wishes, just facts. Yes, K8L is rev. H and as I said earlier it is due to launch about a year after Core 2 Duo. Rev. F and Rev. G are not expected to retake the performance lead in desktops or notebooks within the next year. Re: They have 2 dual core chips on a single package, and it is incorrect to call it a "QUAD CORE Chip." One chip is still one chip, and (1+1=2), no matter how they are packaged. Sure... AMD doesn't have a dual-core chip either because there is only one memory controller instead of two. Until AMD has quad-channel DDR they don't have a "true" dual-core either. AMD's cores don't share L2 cache, another strike against being a "real" dual-core CPU. As for the ATI Co-processor, I stated that they were expected to release a physics chip, and I thought AMD was interested in them for that reason. The information that ATI was expected to release a Physics Chip was on the Inquirer, and there are links that talk about ATI doing just that. It was an item which we disagreed about. I saw the links, and you did also, but you stated they did not meet your standards for what a physics chip should be. It doesn't really matter to me what they use, or what they call it, just as long as it works to improve performance. I was talking in generalities, and you were nitpicking, IMO. Not the way I remember it. You kept claiming it was a unique processor. I kept telling you it was a GPU. You told me to Google "ati physics processor" as proof. All Google searching proved was that the "physics processor" was a X1900 GPU. Here is my opinion on why you were rather subborn on this point: If ATI created a unique physics chip rather than renamed a video card GPU it would made ATI's engineering accomplishments appear much more significant. That type of creativity and engineering prowess would certainly make ATI look like a much better buy at ~$5.5 billion, and therefore make AMD's decision to pay such a high price for ATI seem more reasonable.