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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (74939)	3/1/1999 11:42:00 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: "These sort of numbers can be easily obtained right now by placing multiple processors in a system. Merced is a brute force approach to a relatively simple problem." What's to stop someone from using multiple Merceds? And don't forget, Merced is the slow one, remember? McKinley will be the fast one, or so I hear <ggg> EP

To: Scumbria who wrote (74939)	3/1/1999 12:19:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

S, >>> These sort of numbers can be easily obtained right now by placing multiple processors in a system.<<< Typical response we've come to expect from you, i.e., whatever Intel comes out with must be unnecessary or can be done better another way. In spite of what you're saying here, I'm sure you had some denigrating things to say whan four way PPros and Xeons came out. Well, I can tell you, in no uncertain terms, that the performance of the unit processor CPU is the single most important parameter in the large computer world. It's a no-brainer because, when you do multiprocessor systems, the more powerful the UP, the more powerful the 2P, 3P, 4P and up become. Boy, rocket science. Back to your statement, I don't care how many 32 bit CPU's you put together, it wouldn't perform to the level that is intended for multiple 64 bit CPUs. We're talking high end Sun servers and mainframes now. Tony