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: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (56211)	4/24/1999 7:05:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571040

Kevin, This thread is bad enough without turning it into a forum on child rearing. Please, let's not turn this into an insult contest on how to raise our kids. I missed the insult part. We have no new news about K7. K6-III is inching along. Cyrix hasn't had any news in two years. Intel has nothing in the pipe for the next 12 months at least. What else is there to talk about? Scumbria

To: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (56211)	4/24/1999 7:08:00 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 1571040

Re: "BTW, if that engineer's numbers are right and the K7 using SLOW 1/3 speed L2 is as fast as the good old top of the line Xeon from Intel at floating point, then I wonder what the additional of full speed L2 (like the Xeon has) will do for the K7's numbers." The K7 was 8% faster than a PIII, not a Xeon. A Xeon is as much as 15% faster than a PIII at FP so you can see the obvious conclusions, based on the data presented, a K7 would lose to a Xeon. Also how do you know the L2 was only 1/3? EP