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 (51925)	3/8/1999 7:08:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571561

Two problems with your comments, Kevin. <All this with a processor design that, due to its architecture (lower latency) is more difficult to manufacture at high clock speeds than that of the competition, all other things being equal.> Intel sure didn't have any troubles grafting an L2 cache on the die and releasing the Mendocino Celeron one quarter earlier than expected. Not only that, but all those "uberclockers" out there running Celerons at 450 Mhz kind of tells you that Intel hasn't pushed the Celeron to its fastest speeds yet. <I'm not sure why people are surprised that AMD won't hit 5.5 million units--it's pretty obvious that units shipped are going to fall when you increase die size as significantly as AMD has done with the K6-3.> This is exactly what I was asking about a month or two ago. I kept asking everyone if AMD was capacity-constrained. People kept telling me "no", that AMD's Fab 25 can easily push more wafer starts per month if they wanted to. Now people are telling me, "Oh yeah, those larger K6-3 dies are going to impact the number of units sold"? Tenchusatsu