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: wbmw who wrote (257538)	12/24/2008 6:44:21 PM
From: mas_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

At 3GHz AMD loses. LOL, what does AMD lose, the highest gigglehurtz award ? :) The architectures diverge so sharply in many applications that another ~10% greater clock will make no difference to the outcome. I would find it ridiculous to suggest that AMD felt 3GHz was "round", and as a business decision they formally decided to stop there, and forego even a couple thousand units at $1000 pricing. Yeah because the FX line was such a big earner for AMD at a fraction of one per cent <rolls eyes> Yet you guys still seem to think they can go higher, so my response is: why haven't they?? Why hasn't Nehalem or Penryn gone higher than 3.2 GHz even though they have Harpertowns at 3.5 GHz ? Business reasons, Barcelona/Shanghais can beat Harpertown in many benches at any clock forcing Intel's hand in the Server sphere. To start with AMD needs high-volume 2.8 and 3.0 GHz AM2 models to sit above the 2.6 and lower Phenom I models. Once AM3 starts ramping and greater 45nm conversion has occurred than AMD can start playing with clock/yield curves. When Intel goes to 32nm you will see what AMD can ultimately do at 45nm flat-out because it will need to stay in touch, firstly though it needs to fully convert to 45nm.