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 (52896)	3/18/1999 9:58:00 PM
From: Richard Wang	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574263

<I suspect this may have been a .18u version of PIII. Didn't you ever think of that? Is your suspicion better than my suspicion? Is your suspicion so superior, so you don't have to back up your claims? Regards, Richard

To: Elmer who wrote (52896)	3/18/1999 11:31:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574263

Elmer, You didn't ask what tricks AMD pulled to do their 600Mhz demo. You didn't ask if AMD cooled theirs down. K7 will be shipping at 500+ MHz in a few weeks. There is no reason to believe that they had to pull any tricks beyond jacking the voltage up, to hit 600 MHz. On the other hand, the huge differential between Xeon shipping speeds and their demo (250 Mhz) clearly indicates that Intel was up to mischief. When you can put your bias aside and think objectively we can discuss it. I go to great lengths to keep my engineering judgement objective. As an example, earlier today I suggested that K7 integer performance may be slower clock for clock than Xeon. However, every ounce of engineering sense in me says that the Intel 800MHz/1GHz demos were contrived. Scumbria