SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Paul Engel who wrote (55085)4/10/1999 1:18:00 PM
From: Scumbria  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1582684
 
Paul,

If you want to make performance assumptions based on alpha silicon from an unknown source, with an unknown date, with an unknown feature set, an unknown bios, unknown drivers, an unknown chipset and unoptimized software, feel free.

Even so, the K7 still beat Intel's top processor. Got the picture?

Scumbria



To: Paul Engel who wrote (55085)4/10/1999 10:18:00 PM
From: RDM  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1582684
 
<OEMs are less than happy with the kit they've received>
He said nothing of the authority or education of the people he talked to. The could well have been janitors! He did say that the OEMS had agreements with AMD to not disclose the results. I doubt strongly that "the OEMS" were speaking of any disappointment with an alpha product.

Only a naive person, or a rookie, would be surprised that an early alpha prototype K7 did not blow away the Pentium III production part. Every developer knows that you proceed through development steps:

1. dead
2. limper
3. functional mostly, but slow
4. fully functional, but slow
5. final speed
6. tweaked speed after removal of slow speed paths.

The chip and board discussed is simply at level 3 or 4. The future prospects for the K7 is perhaps best indicated by a survey that I did that indicated that 85% percent of the negative posters on this thread post five times or more on the Intel thread on the same day.