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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (26350)	12/2/1997 2:43:00 PM
From: StockMan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572776

Re -- If the argument that you and Ali are making is correct (that the K6 is effectively working harder/more effectively at a given clock speed than the chip inside a Pentium II cartridge) If you extended your reasoning, the K5 and cyrix chips with their PR rating worked harder than the K6, Wonder why AMD decided to go for the higher clock speed tradeoff. Please do not reply to Petz posts. He is just spewing nonsense on this thread. Stockman

To: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (26350)	12/2/1997 6:17:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572776

Good post, Kevin, but I was not trying to say that PII speed advantage comes from higher power dissipation, but that max clock speed (300MHz vs. 233 MHz for K6) comes from higher power dissipation. The backside bus and higher L2 cache frequency of the P2 gives maybe a 10% performance boost, not enough to be worth it by itself, but if you need the thermal brick to handle power dissipation, you might as well put it in. There are other ways to get high performance without raising clock speed. Cyrix seems to be the best at this since its 6X86mx-PR233 clearly outperforms a P2-233 while running at (I think) 187.5 MHz. Petz