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: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (47418)	1/26/1999 4:16:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573447

Pravin, RE:"Dixon"... We know that the core is the same but the lineage of the Dixon is closer to the Celeron than the Pentium II. I even remember hearing the Dixon mentioned as a Celeron with 256k onboard. The die size of the K6-3 on .25u is 117mm2 and the Dixon has to be close to 174mm2 since the Celeron A is about 154mm2. So the Dixon is about 50% bigger than the K6-3. Still, that brings up an interesting point as I distinctly rememeber an AMD spokesman saying the K6-3 was intended for the notebook market. This should bring up a warning flag, IMHO. If AMD can't get decent yields on the K6-3 (w/256k) it had better move up the release of the K7. Dixon could move to .18u/desktop but the real problem is that this chip is faster clock for clock than the Pentium III. Intel will likely just keep it a notebook replacement for the current Pentium II and segment it above the Celeron. At this point it must be cheaper to make than the mobile Pentium II or why even go to it?