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: Brian Hutcheson who wrote (26720)	12/13/1997 11:45:00 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574804

<but in view of the claim by Tom Pabst on K6-3d being 30% faster than PII at same speed > Brian, I think you misunderstood the claim. Don't expect the K6-3D to be faster at all operations. Expect it to be faster at doing some 3-D operations. In addition, don't expect AMD to be shipping at the same speed. Otherwise the Deschutes will be 34.9% faster than an AMD processor.at the same speed. EP

To: Brian Hutcheson who wrote (26720)	12/13/1997 12:11:00 PM
From: Kashish King	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574804

Tom Pabst is a hobbiest with an interest in playing with switch settings on motherboards and running publicly available benchmarking utilities, duh. Based on what I have seen from you thus far, it's not surprising that you have based an investment decision on some inconclusive, uncontrolled and meaningless comparisons from somebody's basement. I have a suggestion before you lose it all: first of all, take your head out of the sand and re-read the most recent article, posted here by AMD faithful, until comprehension is acheived. Next, note that AMD investors were quoting the so-called results from that same hobbiest regarding the K6 and Pentium II which turned out to be utter nonsense. Finally and most importantly, realize that you are offering third-hand information from the same hobbiest regarding a so-called comparison between non-production vaporware and Intel's soon-to-be-replaced, first-generation PII chip. That's asinine, pure and simple. AMD still lags Intel's performance by two speed grades, and the K6's FP and MMX performance are lackluster, but it is better positioned than ever before. mdronline.com; Financially speaking, you are a danger to yourself and others by refusing to face reality and look at the facts objectively. Rather than spinning yarns let's look at current history. Here we are seeing the same B.S. being spread about the AMD, the Next Generation which has about as much credibility as the TV show of a similar name. Granted, things are different this time around insofar as the CEO is screaming in your face that THERE WILL BE NO PROFITS FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE.

To: Brian Hutcheson who wrote (26720)	12/13/1997 2:51:00 PM
From: Kashish King	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574804

You should appreciate the helping hand that David Jung and others are giving you: sjmercury.com I'll tell you which is truly frightening about AMD's unfocused, incoherent approach: not the hard-wiring of 3D functions into their chip versus integrating superior, exchangeable and upgradeable solutions, rather, it's the following: The more chips you can produce per wafer of silicon, the more money you make. Case in point: One eight-inch wafer of Intel's tiny 233-Mhz Pentium MMX chips contains an estimated 211 chips worth $125,000. The same size wafer of larger 180-Mhz Cyrix MediaGXs is worth only $8,100, says Micro Design Resources. I know I posted this snippet earlier and I am hoping that repeated reading will trigger comprehension.