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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dumbmoney who wrote (66136)	10/9/1998 2:21:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

dumbmoney - Re: I am somewhat disappointed that it is taking 5 years for Intel to go from the P6 to the next core (call it P7). " Why be disappointed? You act as if Intel has done NOTHING in the mean time to the P6 core. Look what Intel has done on the "P6 core" since the original introduction: 1. Expanded L1 cache from 16 to 32 KiloBytes. 2. ADDED MMX instruction sets. 3. Added Katmai New Instructions. 4. Extended the address space from 32 to 36 bits - for greatly expanded memory addressing. 5. Added 1/2 Speed Back Side Bus to accommodate cheaper memory for Pentium II in addition to original full speed backside bus (Pentium Pro) 6. Added on Chip L2 cache 7. Currently INCREASING L2 cache from 128 KBytes (Mendocino) to 256 KBytes (Dixon) to ~ 2 MegaBytes (Cascades). These enhancements demonstrate that the P6 device family was greatly enhanced while the next generation core was being developed. As for Foster and Willammette, my guess is that Intel re-defined these products after they spent a year or more on them. Specifically, I think Intel initially set out to design these with relatively small L1 caches - 32 Kilobytes. My guess is that Intel's fab success with the HP PA-8500 and excellent yields prompted them to redesign the new core with a VERY LARGE L1 cache - 1 MegaByte or possibly LARGER ~ 2 MegaBytes - which will be much more efficient than a small L1 and a Large L2 cache. Paul