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 (31953)	4/16/1998 1:28:00 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577978

<PS the question still arises , why did these manufacturers not install L2 cache on the boards . Is the cost of Celeron that high in this low priced field that they cannot afford to add it inspite of the performance hit ?> Like I said, I'm not impressed with the Celeron either, so I'm not defending it. As for the cache on the board, if you mean the motherboard like the Pentium & K6, the answer is that the L2 controller isn't in the chipset like it is on a socket7 system. I don't have any answers as to why Intel did this chip. I will again say that I don't think it will be around long though. Your point before that Intel can't make money on an integerated PII+L2 is incorrect, IMHO. They wouldn't make as much as a full blown PII because of the large die size, but I still believe they could make money. If Intel's yields are as phenomenal as has been suggested (and I have reason to believe they are) Intel could make money, though not a lot of money. That L2 would be full core speed L2, not 1/2 speed like the current Deschutes. EP