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: Jim McMannis who wrote (37941)	10/2/1998 2:33:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1572100

Jim, Isn't the Xeon supposed to be Intels big margin baby? Too bad they had to rush it to market without fully testing it... Typical headaches associated with the launch of a new product line. Besides, I think most people overestimate Xeon's influence on Intel's bottom line. Sure, the margins are high, but the volume is low. I'd sure like to see how quickly AMD rushes K7 to the market without fully testing it. After all this talk over Win95 and the AMD K6-350, I'd hate to see what could potentially happen with the K7, especially since it's being implemented on a totally new Slot A platform. (To be fair, the same headaches may crop up when Merced is released.) The bad news, however, is that Intel has admitted that most NT applications will not take advantage of the 1MB and 2MB cache that they intend to put on the chip, and have also admitted that the 450MHz Xeon will not provide any performance gain over the 400MHz with typical workstation apps. I've heard that there was a magazine ad for Sun Solaris. The ad goes, "If you want to see the full power of Xeon, you're not going to see it with Windows NT." Kind of humorous coming from the makers of Ultrasparc. Meanwhile, I wonder which NT applications do take advantage of the full 1MB and 2MB caches. Perhaps the few that do (databases?) are the very ones that will encourage people to buy the 1MB and 2MB versions of Xeon. Tenchusatsu

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (37941)	10/2/1998 6:21:00 PM
From: Buckwheat	Respond to of 1572100

Jim and Ali, I hate to seem redundant here, but I think it might be helpful to provide those interested with a link to the original PC Week article on the Xeon. There's a little history included with this one which begins around June 98. Too bad Microsoft hasn't seen fit to shoulder the blame for this one as they did with the K6-2 350 and PII 333 Win 95 glitches! Then again, blame doesn't add to the bottom line anyway, does it? zdnet.com Buckwheat