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 (47939)	1/30/1999 8:27:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580203

Re: "Wrong. If they could, they'd replace PII/PIII with a Katmai enhanced Dixon in a flash. I'd be much more competitive against AMD, and if they could yield it, it'd be cheaper. They're waiting for .18u FOR A REASON!" Intel was capacity constrained last quarter. Are you suggesting they should produce a larger die and sell it for a lower cost? That's nonsense. Unlike AMD, Intel is in business to enhance shareholder value and they best do that by maximizing profit. Of course the yield would be lower because the die would be bigger. Only a company hellbent on revenge would pursue such an irresponsible course. I have good reason to believe that Intel could do it profitably but why should they? EP

To: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (47939)	1/30/1999 9:21:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1580203

<If they could, they'd replace PII/PIII with a Katmai enhanced Dixon in a flash.> Not really. Intel's own Business Winstone 99 benchmarks put the Dixon at a 5% to 7% performance advantage. That's not a very convincing selling point from a marketing point-of-view. The primary purpose of Dixon's 256K of on-die L2 cache isn't to gain a few points on Business Winstone. Rather, it's purpose is to allow Intel to get rid of the 512K of SRAM cache. This not only allows for a savings in power (I assume), it also allows the processor mini-cartridge to shrink in size. From Intel's own web site, "The new BGA (Ball Grid Array) component packaging is one-third the size of the current mini-cartridge package and half the height. The reduction in package size allows for the thinnest and lightest notebooks ever." (http://www.intel.com/mobile/pentiumII/challenge.htm#size) So why isn't Dixon on the desktop? I don't know, but I guess since the 0.18 micron process is pretty close to ramp-up, I would imagine that Intel decided to wait until then before going to on-die cache with Coppermine. Tenchusatsu