W
willbill
George said:You're probably right but the reasons escape me: given that P4s in question
and C2Ds are produced in the same 65nm fabs, it is cerainly odd that Intel
would bring out a new iteration of P4 which is going to push C2D production
out of the way for a chip which nobody (who "knows) wants. Since the same
chipsets.mbrds are used with both CPUs, it makes it even stranger.
totally agreed on all points
I have to ask: why can Intel not produce all C2Ds right now? They don't
want to write off the low-power P4 development & tooling costs?
to me it was odd that Intel would spend the money
to further develop P4, given their current issues
with profits(lackof) and layoffs
There is still a P4 fan-faction at Intel?
wouldn't surprise me
C2D has umm, yield problems? It's a
further plot to sink AMD with even lower prices? Are there large corporate
buyers who insist on 1,000 systems exactly identical to what they bought 3
months ago... P4 an' all?
It seems to me that something's afoot here.
totally agreed
I don't see Mikey reversing
himself on desktop Athlon64s but we'll know more about the scale of that
effort in a week or two by all accounts. I dunno if you caught my post the
other day about the rumors flying around that Dell has sucked the Athlon64
channel dry.
if there is any one person who is not stupid
it is mike dell
this whole thing is odd
i just went to anandtech and tomshardware
and there is nothing on this
(i did not try googling, nor did i try
searching on the intel site)
iow, is it (lower power P4s) really true?
bill