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 : DELL Bear Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (1985)	9/28/1998 9:47:00 PM
From: jjs_ynot	Respond to of 2578

From the popular media: msnbc.com

To: Bilow who wrote (1985)	9/29/1998 10:22:00 PM
From: divvie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2578

Note also that the change appears first in the lowest end chips. This is as I have claimed. Note that the change is inevitable in the higher end chips, as I have claimed. You are seeing an integration revolution reducing the parts count on the mother board. This revolution will continue over the next five years, and the end product is going to be built like today's pocket calculator. Cheap and commoditized. Note also that the change appears first in the lowest end chips. Be careful when trying to prove a point. The reason that the latest Celeron has on-die L2 cache is that the original Celeron sans L2 performed badly in benchmarks. SRAM is still very expensive, especially if it is running at core CPU clock speed, which this is. Xeon also has on-die same core clock speed L2 cache but much more. Celeron only has 128k. INTC were forced into doing this, not because falling component prices made it expedient to do so (as you have argued in the past) but because, though Celeron has the excellent PII core and is therefore an extremely fast chip, the lack of L2 cache meant that they performed badly in Ziff Davis MS Office tests! This resulted in the incorrect perception in the marketplace that Celeron was substandard. Logically INTC would not want to do this on their low end chip. Their hand was forced. This is a bad example for your argument. Your video card examples are much better.

To: Bilow who wrote (1985)	10/6/1998 2:24:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2578

Another week's EETimes articles to read: Unix clipping NT's wings? Some people think the battle between engineering workstations equipped with Unix and those built around Windows NT is over. I think it's just beginning. techweb.com Chip-set support improves VCM's odds vs. Rambus -- NEC alters race to faster PC memory Tokyo - NEC Corp. has garnered support for its virtual-channel-memory SDRAMs from three of Taiwan's top PC-core-logic makers, and the first motherboard prototypes supporting the new architecture are in the offing. The development poses a threat at the low end to the plans of Intel Corp. and Rambus Inc. to drive Direct Rambus as the PC memory of choice starting next year. techweb.com -- Carl