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: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (47665)	1/28/1999 1:30:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571899

Kevin and Paul, the reason why I asked about Dixon and mobile K6-3 power consumption is that laptop owners care just as much about power consumption as they do about performance. I was told by someone that the K6-3 will consume less power than the Dixon. I wonder if this statement is based on an invalid comparison, because although Dixon's die is larger and more power-hungry, the elimination of the off-chip L2 cache helps to decrease overall power consumption. Meanwhile, a K6-3 has to run on a 100 MHz bus, but if that bus only consumes a half-watt more than a 66 MHz bus, it really doesn't matter. By the way, just for your info, Intel's own Business Winstone 99 benchmarks put the Dixon at approx. a 5% to 7% advantage over a mobile Deschutes w/ 512K of off-chip L2 cache. A K6-3 without an L3 cache is about 3% faster than a Pentium II (Deschutes). Seems like if the mobile K6-3 wants to compete against Dixon in performance, AMD will have to add L3 cache. How much power does a motherboard SRAM cache consume, anyway? Tenchusatsu Tenchusatsu