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: Jim McMannis who wrote (55261)	4/12/1999 3:24:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573088

Jim, On the other hand, this looks like a real reach and will have the Intel faithful up in arms and laughs. From a design point of view, MHz is not interesting, but rather the inverse- which is cycle time. The cycle time at 600 MHz is 1.67ns. At 1GHz it is 1.00ns. This is a reduction in cycle time of only 40%. It is approximately the same difficulty to go from 600 Mhz to 1GHz, as it was to go from 300 MHz up to 500 MHz. K6 will have accomplished this in about 12 months, without a process jump. Scumbria

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (55261)	4/12/1999 9:23:00 PM
From: Gary Ng	Respond to of 1573088

Jim, Re: Sounds good but I'll be happy to see a K7 at 600 at introduction and worry about it from there. K7 is a non-issue in 1999, IMO. It was till the 3rd to 4th quarter after K6's introduction it could have some real financial impact on AMD. I believe K7 would be similar. For the rest of the year, I would say that AMD's earning depends on K6-III. BTW, K6 was also a completely new core(back when it was introduced) but it was till they moved to .25 process then we could see some real speed improvement and volume. Gary