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 (39965)	10/24/1998 11:21:00 AM
From: Brian Hutcheson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574000

Jim , good reply to Elmer. I'm sure that with his Intel blinkers in place he will ignore the obvious though . Isn't it nice to see AMD swap places with Intel . Intel is now the company that is having trouble ramping speed on their product and the reason is the same one you mentioned . They have no trouble ramping PII and the only difference really is the on chip cache on Celeron . That indicates the speed problem is in the L2 cache . The only way Intel can pressure K6-2 prices is by dropping their main product line (PII) , if they do that the profits will suffer . An additional problem for them is K6-2 is getting closer in speed , it becomes increasing more difficult to ramp speed as clock speed gets higher , the result will be less of a gap between K6-2 and PII . AMD no doubt is finding K6-3 a problem because of the L2 cache just as Intel has with Celeron A , that is probably why its introduction was delayed . Brian

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (39965)	10/24/1998 4:00:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574000

McMannis - re: "s it likely will be much faster than anything Intel has at the time of launch. " When is the K7 launch date ? What Intel chips will be out their facing the K7 at that time ? What will be the speed advantage of the K7 over these Intel CPUs at that time ? Paul

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (39965)	10/24/1998 5:02:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574000

Re: "Based on you logic Intel should have put the L2 in the Pentium II die from day one." They didn't think they could yield well with L2 on die, just like AMD doesn't think they can yield well today, and the 1/2 speed backside bus really handcuffed the performance for Intel, just like it will for the K7. Intel had to spend the money to buy the new testers just like AMD will have to spend the money now. The difference is that Intel had the money to spend and AMD doesn't. After AMD invests the capitol to buy the new equipment, just what will they do with it? You say AMD will move the L2 on die at some future time, fine, but what will they need those new expensive highspeed testers for once they add the L2 to the die and only need to test a 100mhz bus (not 200mhz as claimed by some here, it is 100mhz double pumped) No need to test at 500+ mhz anymore. Wasted capitol just because AMD didn't add the L2 now. Huge amounts of money will be spent needlessly and performance will really suffer dramatically. You guys who have popped woodies over the foil flipping will go limp once reality sinks in, but when did reality ever matter to most of you guys anyway? It's the foils and press releases that get you off. The K7 will not perform up to your expectations. Come to grips with that and move on. EP