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: Process Boy who wrote (55641)	4/15/1999 6:28:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575919

PB, Re: YUK article The data therein seems wrong as AMD should be also be at the magical 1Ghz number by end of yr 2000 as well. Having said that it does have some speculated numbers of where Willamette will be in end of 2000. So it will be interesting to compare the actual k7 benchmarks to see if K7 has better/similar/or worse numbers than Willamette. Regards, Kash J.

To: Process Boy who wrote (55641)	4/15/1999 6:44:00 PM
From: Gopher Broke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575919

So Intel know more about K7 than AMD? late 2000 featuring a Willamette IA32 processor rated at 1100MHz competing with an AMD K7 at a paltry 666MHz But we are told by AMD - K7 in 3Q 99 - .18 process in 4Q 99 - .18 copper in 1Q 00 - 1 GHz K7 by end 2000 So where does Intel project a 666MHz K7 in late 2000? Or do they mean that the processor they will release in late-2000 should be compared with an AMD processor that will have been introduced in mid-1999 :)