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 (44736)	1/4/1999 1:14:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570742

Jim and rest of thread, I've been thinking about this cache thing for K-3. It would appear to me that there should be 2 versions of the k6-3. One with the full speed cache and we know that will kick some butt. However Paul's point of lower yields with the bigger die size are valid. So it would be logical for them to take the bad die and disable the bad cache. In this case they would have a k-3 with 128K of cache (same as new Celery). Frankly with extra-redundancy the yields with 128K cache should be not much lower than for regular k6-2's. This chip would certainly smoke the Celerons. Any ideas on the performance of such a beast??? Regards, Kash

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (44736)	1/4/1999 3:57:00 PM
From: Brian Hutcheson	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1570742

Jim , re. Intel's annonucement that Celeron 400 is 20% faster than Celeron 333 . If that is true how does C-400 compare with PII-400 ? According to PC World january edition the average PC World bench score for four PII-400s tested calculates to be a score of 206 . 20% extra performance for the Celeron would be 215 . So Intel in its greed for the whole market is now stabbing themselves in the back since the only way they sell PIIs at an appreciably higher price is by selling much higher clock speed PIIs . To be able to sell PII at their usual premium over Celeron they would need 550 mhz parts at least, Brian PS I wonder of those Celery 400s are actually 333 mhz parts that Intel is lowering their standards on since the Celery 333 overclocked to 500 the same as K6-2 400 . Also I believe that Engel is having a nervous breakdown judging from the frenetic posting today <vbg>