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: Maxwell who wrote (42519)	12/1/1998 2:51:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1573348

<As if Intel is the only one to know how to get to 0.18um. Nonsense. It will be awhile before Intel can covert all 4 fabs to 0.18um. Like I said Intel is like an oil tanker. It takes a mile to make a wide turn.> As if the transition will be any easier for AMD. I don't know much about fabs (even though I work right next to one), but I suspect that the "copy exactly" philosophy will help Intel transition very smoothly and quickly to 0.18 micron. <How do you know KNI is superior to 3DNOW? Have you seen the full potential of 3DNOW yet? Eventually the limitation will be the memory bus and K7 got a 200MHz bus without using RDRAM.> I don't know what the full potential of 3D-Now is. Do you? And what technical features does 3D-Now possess that KNI doesn't? As for a 200 MHz bus without RDRAM, well, that has nothing to do with KNI vs. 3D-Now. <Yeah with twice the die size of PII compared to K6-2, 2 fabs of INTC is equivalent to 1 AMD fab. Next year AMD will have 2 to match 4 INTC fabs. Till Intel goes for local interconnect Intel will never achieve the density as AMD.> And you still think that AMD achieves the same yields as Intel? Having double the density does not directly translate into double the production output per square foot of fab space. (But to be fair, I would guess that AMD's yields are better that half that of Intel's.) <Everytime Intel does this AMD without warning introducing 2 speed grades higher than CeleronA.> Huh? You realize, of course, that the Celeron isn't really being pushed to its maximum frequencies, and that many people are successfully overclocking their Celerons to 450 MHz. Plus, Intel is forecasted to crank out 8 million of these Celerons this quarter. How many 400 MHz K6-2's are AMD going to crank out this quarter? Not more than several hundred thousand, I'm afraid. <Can't wait till the Willamette in 2nd half of year 2000. Hopefully it is Y2K compatible. But first I suggest Intel to hire Elmer to assist the Intel speaker to flip the foils at next MF.> That's a good one. <Just what I predicted. This must be your best shot. Remember that Intel was at one time in AMD situation with no experience in server.> That brings up an interesting point. I once saw some foils about something which I think was called the "Christensen effect," named after some grad student in economics. The Christensen effect was the process where a competing company introduces some sort of "inferior" (notice the quotes) technology at lower price points, compared to the current leader at the time. Then with time and research, that "inferior" technology is pushed to the point where it provides the same benefits as the "superior" technology but at lower price points. We've seen this happen with AMD pushing the "inferior" Socket 7 in the low end, which is now turning into potential competitors of the Pentium II line. We've also seen this happen with Intel pushing the "inferior" x86 platform into server space, which is now turning into potential competitors of the RISC world. Unfortunately, the "Christensen effect" doesn't say anything about the future. AMD now wants to leapfrog Intel with the K7, while Intel wants to leapfrog the RISC world with Merced and McKinley. Maybe Christensen can come up with some sort of "leapfrog corollary" and predict what will happen in the future. <What has happen to you Ten? You used to be somewhat objective. These days you seem paranoid.> Hope this post was objective enough for you. Tenchusatsu

To: Maxwell who wrote (42519)	12/1/1998 2:59:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 1573348

Maxwell, <Willamette in 2nd half of year 2000. Hopefully it is Y2K compatible.> This is NOT A JOKE! I have read a publication about Intel engineering seminar in a foreign country. The reporter was amazed to hear repetitive statements that "all Intel CPU are Y2K-compliant"! Looks like a last straw for them ... On another note, the way how Intel sees the utilization of ever increasing CPU power, the answer was to use many tasks in background while surfing the web. Tasks like disk defragmentation, file backup, anti-virus checking, forgot what else. More power to bloatware! That's it. No joke. Regards, - Ali

To: Maxwell who wrote (42519)	12/1/1998 3:23:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 1573348

Finally, a vendor with 380s in stock... Krex Direct. I was told that the 380 won't run at 100 MHz bus. Just 95MHz. Is this true? Jim

To: Maxwell who wrote (42519)	12/1/1998 3:51:00 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 1573348

Re: "As if Intel is the only one to know how to get to 0.18um. Nonsense. It will be awhile before Intel can covert all 4 fabs to 0.18um. Like I said Intel is like an oil tanker. It takes a mile to make a wide turn." Really! AMD had a low cost chip before Intel. Intel has now intro'd 2 low cost processors with cache and without. AMD still can't get the K6-3 to work right and now the Celeron is on track to ship 2X the K6 in Q4. Who's slow here? EP