Replies to post #19753 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[dougSF30]

Paul, the clock speed of Prescott is not what is the main concern, I think the power consumption is the real issue.

I completely disagree.

Speed, and by extension, performance, is much more significant.

Only to the extent that power holds back speed does it really matter in the desktop space. (Yes, for small form-factors, it matters, but I'm speaking of primary significance here.)

Imagine, if you will, two scenarios:

A. Prescott launches at 3.8 GHz, but those parts use 125W Max power, and require special new-fangled coolers.

B. Prescott launches at 3.4 GHz (barely), and only gets to 3.6 GHz in mid-Q3. It has surprisingly low max power of 85W max.

Which would you prefer, as an AMD shareholder? (Hint: not A)

Of course, we may get:

C. Prescott launches at 3.4 GHz (barely). At that speed, true max power is 110W, though Intel calls it "95W TDP".

Doug

[sgolds]

j3pflynn -

the clock speed of Prescott is not what is the main concern, I think the power consumption is the real issue.

When you have a power consumption problem and you need to get product to other developers, you underclock. Two sides of the same coin. (Back when AMD was doing this with advance copies of Opteron, hot spots were thought to be the issue.)

On your other post on TA - you are right and I will not try to convince anyone of any particular trading strategy. I hope others found the exchange informative.