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 : Texas Instruments - Good buy now or should we wait? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbershad who wrote (2684)	1/1/1998 11:29:00 PM
From: robert w fain	Respond to of 6180

I see what you mean about Lucent.Ti also does alot of research but they are good at fabrication also.I think INTEL is the leader and TI is working their way up to that class quickly

To: jbershad who wrote (2684)	1/2/1998 12:20:00 AM
From: pat mudge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6180

[ Bell Labs. . .] <<<No matter Western Electric in Pa. before the break up of AT&T, was an outstanding development arm of bell labs. >>> I don't know where you were headed with the Bell Labs discussion, but I'll add my 2 cents and let those more knowledgeable correct where I'm wrong. I believe Western Electric broke off of Bell Labs and became WesCom --- led by RC Penny, the first maker of local loop teleco equipment. At some point they were bought out by Rockwell International in what must have been a hostile takeover b/c after the deal was complete (1980?), the top engineers left and started their own company which they called Westell. Robert C Penny (pere) wasn't involved but some time down the road when the company needed money, he was approached and became a large shareholder. The current Penny --- RC the third --- controls approximately 80% of the company, though takes no administrative role whatsoever. I believe the original Bell Labs is part of Lucent. And speaking of LU, what are the chances TI will do an ADSL chip for them? Hey, glad you had a great ski trip. Or at least I hope it was great. I'm trying to figure out when to go and where. I'll probably do Tahoe (Squaw) early in February and maybe Whistler before the season's over. My favorite is Snowbird in Utah and knowing me, that's where I'll end up. :) BTW, who won the Rose Bowl? I just got back from seeing LA Confidential and I haven't heard. Later --- Pat

To: jbershad who wrote (2684)	1/2/1998 1:10:00 AM
From: SteveG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6180

<..they may come up with something big...> from techweb.com -------- Lucent claims the DSP16210 [...the first offering in their 16000 "Sabre" series...] consumes up to five times less power and requires up to five times less memory than other DSPs, but performance wasn't overlooked along the way. As DSP feature sizes drop below a half micron and supply voltages approach 1 V, performance gains are harder to obtain because of the laws of physics, said Jim Boddie, director of wireless and multimedia technology at Bell Labs. "Our solution is not just to shrink the chip, but to perform more functions in parallel," Boddie said. Lucent's chip uses a dual 16-bit x 16-bit MAC design coupled with a bank of eight 40-bit accumulators to accelerate performance. Operating at 3 V, the device is capable of 200 million MAC operations/s. An on-chip 62-Kx16 dual-port RAM helps conserve power, according to the company. Lucent officials expect the chip to cost approximately $50 in quantities of 100,000 or more. Production volumes will be available in 1998. The Lucent chip will compete with Texas Instruments Inc.'s TMS320C6X, which uses a dual-MAC architecture. Dallas-based TI takes a different approach: a very-long-instruction-word architecture that fetches eight instructions at a time and, based on 1 bit in each instruction, executes between one and eight of the instructions in parallel. ------------ see also: techweb.com techweb.com And LU is also involved with FPGA's and cores, which will be competitive with many DSP applications in filling the ASIC/DSP gap. Excellent review at: zdnet.com Steve