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: Paul Engel who wrote (37145)	9/18/1998 2:48:00 AM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571033

Re: "But, the larger die size will cramp their profits as the silicon costs rise by about 44% or more, depending upon AMD's defect density." Guess what, Paul. The Sharptooth will have a smaller die size than that currently reported on the AMD web site roadmap. What is the die size of your much hyped Dixon? <chuckle, chuckle> Kevin

To: Paul Engel who wrote (37145)	9/18/1998 4:19:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571033

Paul, You bring up a very interesting point about clock speed vs. actual performance. People buy into megahertz and clock speeds. So that means that even if the 400 MHz K6-2 performs like a 350 MHz Pentium II, AMD will market it as if were equivalent to a 400 MHz PII. Then AMD and its supporters will say, "Well, it's close enough for office applications, but hey, those 3D-Now instructions are going to kick some butt in Tomb Raider!" We can debate all we want about these claims, and I'd probably take your side on such a debate, but the fact is that AMD will have a pretty competitive market position. But then Sharptooth will be coming out, and chances are that Sharptooth will be faster than an equivalently-clocked Pentium II. Now the situation will be reversed, and AMD will have to convince people that a Sharptooth is just as fast as a higher-clocked Pentium II. Remember that people will still buy into megahertz and clock speeds. AMD will have to go back to that 'PR' rating again, and may even have to go with a new name other than 'K6-whatever'. Otherwise, consumers will be confused when they hear that two different K6 products with the same frequencies have different performance characteristics. Tenchusatsu