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: JBoyd who wrote (34344)	7/13/1998 2:19:00 AM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1572343

JBoyd <Two To Three Years Behind> It is really "impossible" to explain, but I will try again. Try to follow the steps: Yousef is talking again and again about performance of a SINGLE GATE of silicon. He bases his conclusions on inability of current K6 to run at 400MHz. A CPU is a bit more complex than this GATE. A CPU contain huge comparators and sophisticated address decoders. These decoders usually consist from MANY GATES CONNECTED SEQUENTIONALLY. Some of these decoders must complete their logical function in a SINGLE CPU clock, for performance reasons. Therefore, the clock period cannot be shorter than the sum of all these gate's delays. If you do not know how many gates are in the so-called "critical path" in a particular CPU, any conclusions based on top achievable frequency of a design is a fallacy. Yousef still cannot get it, or just repeating his nonsense for reasons of stockholder deception, in support of his trading tactics. All relevant facts (number of metal layers with local interconnect, overall chip density, C4 mounting technology, 2.2V operating voltage, mobile version of chips, etc) suggest that the AMD manufacturing technology is pretty competitive, if not better at all than at Intel.

To: JBoyd who wrote (34344)	7/17/1998 10:46:00 AM
From: Yousef	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572343

JBoyd, Re: "Wouldn't you say that AMD has gained on Intel in the last two years? Maybe they can close the gap." No, actually I would say that AMD has lost ground in process technology over the past year. Remember, the K6 was introduced on April 2, 1997 at 166mhz, 200mhz and 233mhz. At this time, the K6 was as fast or faster than any announced Intel processor. The problem was that AMD couldn't deliver. Now today, AMD is struggling to go beyond 300mhz while Intel has easily for some time been at 400mhz with 450mhz planned soon. AMD will NOT catch up. Make It So, Yousef