SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Time Traveler who wrote (46687)1/19/1999 11:56:00 PM
From: George Katsoulis  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1572281
 
I just started reading this thread, since I dumped my Intel. No problem telling who the shorts are here! I'm thinking of picking up some AMD since I feel that the stock price was punished a little too severely. My logic is that even if Intel could kill AMD, it would not, since that would lead everyone to believe that they are a monopoly....
(which they pretty much are) So, I think AMD and Intel can have a peaceful co-existence. Opinions?



To: Time Traveler who wrote (46687)1/20/1999 12:58:00 AM
From: Scumbria  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572281
 
Mask problem? Does any one really believe that crap?

Nobody at AMD said there was a mask problem. Jerry said there was "a single speedpath" which was fixed by "a late mask change."

Which makes perfect sense.

Scumbria



To: Time Traveler who wrote (46687)1/20/1999 1:48:00 PM
From: Petz  Respond to of 1572281
 
Time Traveler, re:<K7 uses ... 0.18um process> Initial K7 is 0.25um, not 0.18. The latter version will probably include on-chip L2, we'll see. K7 achieves higher clock speed via a deeper pipeline. It achieves more throughput per clock by having more execution units fed by higher bus speed.