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: Elmer who wrote (41540)	11/16/1998 12:11:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574281

Elmer, <I said it COULD be 128 bits. Wider onchip would just make narrower offchip even more of a disadvantage, now wouldn't it.> You even cannot see the nonsense of your whole point, even after explanation. First you made-up a non-realistic parameter, then you cry foul when it does not fit some reality. Try to think, Elmer. <Poor Ali, still a bitter little man aren't you.> You must be a big confident man, but with no grounds and little brains. If you cannot understand arguments in discussion then just sit tight and keep your mouth shut.

To: Elmer who wrote (41540)	11/16/1998 4:04:00 PM
From: TGPTNDR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574281

Elmer - You seem concerned that the entire package must be tested, trace for trace at full rated speed. I think that's somewhat dopey at the least. If the memory chips are individually certified, and the circuit board certifies, and the cpu certifies, a minimal package certification should be all that is required. The path width sounds like an unnecessary distraction to me. Please educate me! An X-Professional tester. tgptndr

To: Elmer who wrote (41540)	11/16/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574281

Elmer.... Oh Elmer, you had to know I saved one for you.... RE:" To: +Jim McMannis (36384 ) From: +Elmer Thursday, Aug 27 1998 11:35PM ET Reply # of 41588 Re: "AMD will be within one speed grade of Intel at that time. " Not likely Jim. Intel's top speed part is fully 28.5% higher frequency than AMD's top speed part. Virtually exactly the same ratio as when Intel introduced the 300mhz PII and AMD's top speed part was 233mhz. In terms of frequency, AMD is now 100mhz behind when in the past they were only (400-333.33) = 66.66. AMD was on a par when they announced the K6 with both the K6 and the PentiumMMX at 233 and the PPro behind at 200. The PII came out at tops of 266mhz which was only 14% faster. The gap is now DOUBLE percent wise what it was when the PII first came on the scene. Do you see a pattern here? As always, AMDites project where they will be in the future based on where Intel already is........ ------------------ To which I replied.... To: +Elmer (36424 ) From: +Jim McMannis Friday, Aug 28 1998 12:01AM ET Reply # of 41591 Elmer, Unless there is a 500Mhz Pentium II on the Intel horizon in the next few months then when AMD moves to 400...it will be one speed grade behind...450 to 400. As of right now, you are correct they are 2 speed grades behind and 100 MHz... Jim " -------------------------------------------- Hey Elmer, guess what....at 400 MHz AMD is ONE speed grade behind Intel (450) and we know the 400 will run nicely at 500Mhz... You take care now, Jim