🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 12 Jan 1996 08:05:05 -0500, jragosta@dca.net (Joe Ragosta)
wrote:

>In article <4d4omk$otj@steel.interlog.com>, daveacg@interlog.com (Dave
>Glue) wrote:
>
>> On 11 Jan 1996 09:04:09 -0800, curt@beowulf.jpl.nasa.gov (Curt
>> Eggemeyer) wrote:
>> 
>> >The Pentium Pro's maybe faster in some respect, but they don't compete
>> >with the powerPC chips when it comes to production costs. In the end
>> >Intel will have to reduce their massive transistor count if they hope
>> >to remain competitive with the other cpu producers.
>> 
>> Really.  How do you know this?  Do you work on both lines?  Intel's
>> profit margins are VERY high.  For such high production costs, that
>> would seem strange, wouldn't it?
>
>Well, PC Week just stated that Intel is releasing a chip code-named
>Klamath which will be a Pentium Pro w/o the cache module. This reduces the
>transister count by 75 or 80% if I remember correctly. So, Curt seems to
>be correct.

Joe, the cache is one a seperate chip.  Come on, you know this.
They're doing what they always do- produce every possible variant of
thie processor to cover all possible price ranges to saturate the
market and knock out Cyrix/AMD before they can get started.  It has
little to do with Pro's being too costly to make.


>BTW, "sources" claim that Klamath will  still be faster than the fastest
>Pentium. No other performance details were available and Intel declined to
>comment on rumors.

Faster- on NT only, of course (OS/2 as well).