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: Elmer who wrote (51501)	3/3/1999 1:13:00 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573717

Elmer, My point about Merced is that Intel should have been more aggressive with their IA-32 development. It appears they were napping for about 12 months until they realized Merced was having problems. Scumbria

To: Elmer who wrote (51501)	3/3/1999 1:27:00 AM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573717

I predict that it will become clear that Intel is more dependent on Willamette and it's followons than Merced. The problem with Merced is that it sucked away scarce resources that should have been applied to the P7. The P7 should be out by now. See chipanalyst.com@16026968bznmys/mpr/editorials/edit13_01.html "When Pentium Pro (the P6) was launched in 1995, just two years after Pentium, then-CEO Andy Grove implied that Intel's next-generation processor would also appear on a two-year cycle, i.e., in 1997. This plan assumed that Intel's California team, which had developed Pentium, would produce the next CPU. That team was redirected onto the Merced project, however." Merced is the best thing that ever happened to AMD.