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: eracer who wrote (219142)	12/5/2006 7:28:11 PM
From: dougSF30	Respond to of 275872

Eracer, 2) It may say more about the architecture than the process. But Rev G is supposed to offer no architectural changes from Rev F, so how could that be? 3) You could always hope that it is a 1MBx2 part with half the cache disabled. :) LOL! Same with Winchester - 90nm turned out fine after all Approximately 6-9 months down the road. IIRC, Hans claimed that Winchester was actually a 100nm process, despite AMD's claims, and that Rev E was true 90nm. Perhaps something similar again? It took six months to go from 2.2GHz 90-nm Winchester to a faster 90-nm Venice. But it was more than a 200MHz jump when it came, no? Also, frankly, for both of those, AMD can no longer afford "winchester level" performance, given Intel's renewed competitiveness. The frequency is not surprising given where AMD's 90-nm and 65-nm dual-core CPUs are today. Well, AMD's 90nm DC parts run as high as 3GHz today. Of course, that has a 120W TDP itself.