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: Chris Carlson who wrote (75902)	3/9/1999 3:33:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Chris, I think that I am hearing that AMD is perhaps not using a "disciplined circuit design methodology" to prevent/solve this problem That may well be correct. I can only speculate. It is surprising that, if the problem is similar to the one they have been encountering for some time, they have not figured this out. As far as I can tell, there has only been one such problem mentioned by the company, and they claim it has been fixed. Is the "delay chain in one of the paths" merely a quick work-around, or is AMD eventually going to either re-engineer the aspect of the production process that is causing the glitch? Delay chains are a standard part of asynchronous circuits. K7 appears to have been architected (deep pipeline) to avoid the need for such circuitry. The 3-cycle L1 is an indicator of this. I wonder what Intel's solution(s) to these issues were? Wilamette reportedly has a very deep pipeline. Could it be that in the rush to ramp-up corners were cut? If so, it would seem that Intel's market moves are pressuring not just AMD's pricing, but also their process. Playing catch-up with Intel requires aggressive circuit design, particularly when hampered by an inferior manufacturing process technology. Scumbria