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 : AMD:News, Press Releases and Information Only! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (6118)	5/13/1998 2:45:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 6843

Ali #2 - Re: ". Achievemnts in dumb clock-jacking (due to die plain shrinks) must be attributed to semiconductor equipment manufacturers, not to Intel. (To keep pipe layout straight and fab technician's hand clean are not a breaking achievements)." I can't believe you came up with such a lame, erroneous statement! If CPU speed depended only on equipment manufacturers, AMD would be able to make CPUs that run as fast as Intel's CPUs - and so would anybody else since everybody has access to the same equipment vendors! You keep offering up lame excuses that are clearly WRONG! How pathetic. Paul

To: Ali Chen who wrote (6118)	5/13/1998 10:00:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

<1. Intel was not able to propose a technical/ economical solution for a high-speed GENERAL BUS that would sustain enough performance in long-term;> This is simply wrong Ali. Intel is fully capable of delivering anything you want but why should they if there isn't a large general market for it? Intel is in the business of making money ( a concept that must be hard to grasp for an AMD investor). They are not in business to impress you but ratehr to deliver the best overall solution to the broad market. Intel has the best process technology and the best design capability so of course they could do it if there were a broad demand. The issue involving 32x133mhz vrs 64x66mhz clearly went way over your head. Why waste 32 extra pins if you can get the same performance out of less? Intel provides reference designs which make the implimentation much easier for their customers. I noticed that IBM DELL HP Compaq Gateway etc etc were able to get their product to market on the day Intel announced their new chipset. Doesn't seem as they had all that much trouble. Maybe your shop is just lacking in design expertieze. <3. Achievemnts in dumb clock-jacking (due to die plain shrinks) must be attributed to semiconductor equipment manufacturers, not to Intel. (To keep pipe layout straight and fab technician's hand clean are not a breaking achievements).> I'm going to leave this one alone so everyone can get a good laugh. They don't need my help on this one. <It is apparent that it is you who missed the whole point. You also failed to respond to any of my technical points. > Ali with claims like the one above and others like the AGP port just being a PCI to PCI bridge, what's the point? Futhermore Ali, your posts have taken on such a tone of bitterness that is see little value in continuing this thread. Why not cool off for a little while and then we can talk again. EP