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 (34394)	7/13/1998 10:28:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571785

Jboyd. The notion that the K7 will be 50% faster than an equivalent Intel processor is simply fantasy. Remember how great the K5 was going to be? Gee, sorry about that. Remember how the K6 was going to kick Intel's but, ooops, well the K7 is what comes next and expect more of the same. It will be late and a disappointment. EP

To: JBoyd who wrote (34394)	7/13/1998 10:53:00 PM
From: Time Traveler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571785

>>"K7 50% faster clock for clock"<< If you believe that, you deserve to lose money in this market. For your information, Petz is a system engineer working in the aerospace industry down in San Diego area. I remember his very first post to me which he did not know the difference between a ceramic capacitor and a electrolytic aluminum capacitor. Do you remember that, Petz? OK, everybody knows who Time Traveler is. I do really care about my identity any more. Time Traveler

To: JBoyd who wrote (34394)	7/14/1998 2:45:00 AM
From: Petz	Respond to of 1571785

JBoyd, I can't say for sure that AMD will pull ahead of Intel with the K7. Its a new process so there is the potential to execute well or poorly. For reference, AMD executed poorly on 0.35 micron but very well on 0.25 micron. I also know this: in a BOOT magazine article (I think around December), AMD's chief technical officer, Atiq Raza, admitted that he didn't think AMD would catch Intel in 1998. Yes, AMD is still behind Intel's highest speed. AMD's top speed is effectively 300 MHz (very few 333 MHz systems are around) while Intel's is at 400 MHz, a ratio of 1.33. Throughout most of 1997, the ratio was 300/233 in MHz, but about 1.40 in performance (Pentium II was faster than K6, but not K6-2, at equal clock frequencies.) Also, during most of 1997, the 233 MHz K6 was in short supply. The die size ratio of AMD size over Intel size has shrunk considerably, from 162/120 to 80/140 meaning more chips per wafer (used to be less chips per wafer, especially during AMD's yield problem). The next major chip improvements from both companies are first, Intel's Celeron II or Mendocino scheduled for release in September and then AMD's answer, scheduled for release one month later. AMD's chip at the lowest speed of 350 MHz will vastly outperform the Intel chip at 333 MHz, the only speed Intel has scheduled (and certainly the only speed available in September). This is because the so-called K6-3 will have twice the L2 cache of the Intel Celeron II and because the clock speed is higher (350 vs 333). In fact this new AMD chip, because of its full-speed L2 cache will be slightly faster than the fastest desktop chip from Intel available now, the Pentium II-400. By then, Intel will have the 450, but thats a very small performance improvement for a chip expected to cost $800. In 1999, the K7 will be faster than the Intel Katmai, and that is intended to be a very expensive server-oriented CPU. Petz