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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (43802)	1/4/1998 12:34:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<But the fact that P-II sold more chips, as many chip as K6, doesn't explain the superiority of Slot 1 design. > Jozef, you have seen several posts explaining the differences between Slot1 and Socket7 and you still say there is no proof. May I ask just what it is that you are looking for? From an engineering standpoint it is fairly clear. You've heard the technical points and offered nothing to refute them, yet you continue to say there is no proof. Are you in denial or do you have some point to make? EP

To: Joe NYC who wrote (43802)	1/4/1998 10:37:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Jozef - Re: " the fact that P-II sold more chips, as many chip as K6, doesn't explain the superiority of Slot 1 design. " No it doesn't. What helps explain the superiority of Slot 1 is Cyrix claiming they have the rights to it (via NSM) and AMD announcing their backside cache program and Slot A architecture from the Dec ALPHA. Why else would Intel's competitors endorse the Slot 1 (or a SLot A) concept? They have engineers and their engineers have spoken. Paul