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 : CYRIX / NSM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (22041)	12/14/1997 10:41:00 AM
From: Robert Florin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 33344

Intel's proposed integration solution is to add graphics/audio/etc. into the chipset rather than onto the CPU die. Not a good solution in the long run, although I wouldn't put it past INTC to pull it off, or intimidate its vendors to aid in pulling it off. In the long run it does not result in faster systems, and it is not cheaper. INTC CPU yields are currently benefitted by mask and optical shrink size, not on efficiency of layout. The comparison between Cyrx die size and Deschuetes die size requires a recomputation based on similar mask and process. Besides Cyrix's woefully inadequate sales and marketing, I believe the hidden problem has been Cyrix's "partner", IBM ME. Hopefully NSM will not tolerate this use of 2 generation old process on state of the art design. (IBM ME could be the primary reason why our Cyrx investment turned out so poorly. The costs for production, the obstructionist elements, and the inability of IBM Corporate to really commit to the superior M1 design resulted in Cyrix being to market too late, with too big a die, and too little marketing and sales support. IBM extracted an incredibly lucrative deal from Cyrix re chips. It was painful, but IBM could have been the necessary stepping stone for visability and a market beachhead. Cyrix took that risk perhaps naively hoping that IBM was serious about being a partner. And Cyrix gave IBM a big stake, lots of chips, accesss to the technology, and essentially an open door to any depth of partnership IBM would want. What did IBM do? It took the chips and undersold Cyrx on the third market, for pennies profit. They didn't have the forsight, even if they had the means of production, to take the M1, M2, Gx, MXi etc and reassert a challenge to INTC for control of the hardware platform. Annals of Corporate Cowadice and Stupidity take note. This is the next useful Harvard Business School case study. IBM was a GREAT partner! Thanks IBM. May your stock die a thousand deaths.) Think about the potential value which the Centaur C6 offers to someone with an X86 cross license. Which company will be smart enough to buy them out? (The die size of the C6 is 88mm2.) IDTI does have an interesting approach to MPU design. The simplier the better. Sacrifice some of the features that cost huge overhead, simplify the pipelining and branch prediction for smaller die size and faster throughput, and you are likely to wind-up with an equivalent speed CPU in the long run. Interesting approach. We will see if they can maintain competitive products. There mhz rating means nothing BTW. Putting instructions through a couple of segments versus a number of segments at the same clock speed is not the same. There are lots of other factors here that translate into real performance. As far as someone buying them out, they would have to buy IDTI, a much bigger fish to swallow, unless IDTI wants to spin off their little R&D Centaur. I would doubt that unless they got a very big premium to the divisions actual worth since they have put so much into startup costs. Centaurs real value might be in the cheap imbedded MPU requirements of settop boxes, etc. I don't see it taking over the more demanding PC low end ... yet.