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: Cirruslvr who wrote (49346)	2/11/1999 11:53:00 PM
From: greg nus	Respond to of 1573900

cirexxlover, I guess barett can't be everwhere.

To: Cirruslvr who wrote (49346)	2/12/1999 4:19:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1573900

<Looks like Intel, too, is having problems!> And what happens if AMD has to introduce a "mask fix" and throw away a bunch of K7's that couldn't make the 500 MHz target? What are the chances of this happening? Pretty good, I might imagine. Linley Gwennap once said that Intel should not have gotten into a position where its success depends on AMD's failure to execute. But I think AMD with their extremely aggressive roadmap is setting themselves up for failures big time. By the way, it sucks that the 133 MHz Camino was delayed by three months, but I'll bet that was due to the lack of 800 MHz RDRAM parts available, not due to a failure of the chipset itself. So Intel decides to crank down the speed to a 600 MHz RDRAM port. (Why reduce the speed of the front-side bus as well? Because it's easier to just reduce both the memory speed and the front-side bus than it is to reprogram the memory controller to support a new FSB-to-memory clock multiplier.) Besides, last year I never expected Camino to be introduced until the summer. Guess accelerating the roapmap is problematic for Intel as well, but not as much as it is for AMD because Intel is so diverse. Tenchusatsu

To: Cirruslvr who wrote (49346)	2/12/1999 7:26:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573900

Cringe - Re: ", this is the same company who had to delay Merced, " Isn't AMD the company that delayed the K6-3 for six months also worthy of your bile and vehemence? The only difference is that AMD chose to HIDE THE SLIPPAGE from it shareholders. That's why AMD is near a 15 year low in its stock. And lets face the facts - the MERCED is quite a bit more complex than just grafting a 256K L2 cache onto an existing K6-2 - yet AMD's slippage was as bad as Intel's Merced slippage. Paul