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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (57097)	5/3/1999 3:52:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572775

Tench, RE:"All I know is that there isn't anything in the K7 foils that convinced me that the K7 is inherently much more scalable in MHz than the P6." Thanks. The reason I asked is that it's been said that the K7 is designed for MHz speed. I'm no design expert so I don't know exactly how one would do this other than to take a cue from Cyrix and say less work per cycle might result in higher clockspeeds. If AMD can get 600-700 MHz out of an inferior to Intel .25u process wouldn't this be an indication that the K7 will scale much better than the K6 and perhaps the P-III? Kind of curious if the P6 core was designed with MHz speed in mind or was it just a fortuitious event? Before you came on the board I suggested the P5 could have easily reached 400+ MHz on .25u. Even that this might have been a better strategy for Intel than the Celeron but apparently Intel wanted to move away from Socket 7, which didn't bury it anyway. Intel could have costs on the PentiumMMX of less than $20 by now, IMHO. Jim