Welcome Notice

Register Log in

XLNX as a way to invest in AMD...

F

Flyguy

Guest
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:00:55 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 1:04:12 AM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 8:30:27 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 9:25:25 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 7:44:37 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

Neither AMD or INTC has a significant technological edge over the other (XLNX is in a separate business altogether, but I doubt that Sloman knows that).

Intel and AMD make processors (amongst other things - I was an early user of AMD\'s Taxichip serial link devices, and didn\'t enjoy coping with the early changes to their data sheet). There are lots of different ways of putting processors together, and Intel did it first, and stuck to maintaining backwards compatibilty for a bit too long.

ARM is also in that business,and they espoused a different architecture early on which did seem to give them a technological advantage. I never met Andy Hopper (when I was living and working in Cambridge UK), but he seemed to have contributed some of it.

Xilinx make programmable devices. I didn\'t like them much because they were power hogs, and much preferred the Philips Coolrunner parts which Philips eventually sold to Xilinx.
Yes, Xilinx parts were relative power hogs because they used a very different process with an emphasis on speed. Coolrunner parts were also a different architecture (CPLD like) which provided much more consistent timing and routing, but maxed out pricing very quickly with size (think O(N^2) rather than ~O(N log(N))). The Coolrunner parts were ultimately replaced by the very similar Coolrunner II devices but still had the high price penalty at the high end. If you only needed a smaller part you would be very unlikely to be looking at FPGAs anyway.
Some investors are willing to pay MUCH more for AMD earnings than INTC, but that is the equivalent of the king not wearing clothes - at some point they will figure out they\'ve been had.
Your opinion on the subject isn\'t all that interesting - you are an ill-informed idiot, after all.
More that he gets an idea in his head and refuses to consider any information that contradicts that idea. Ok, maybe you are right.

--

Rick C.

++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Xilinx parts will never be very low power because so much of the real estate doesn\'t do much, if anything. They use a high-speed RAM to do the function of a simple gate.
Not sure what that has to do with anything about the stock value. Even ignoring that, the statement is untrue. It does show you don\'t know much about FPGAs or possibly you simply don\'t understand the nature of digital semiconductors and power dissipation. Most likely both are the case.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
No, it shows that YOU don\'t know much about how Xilinx has implemented their architecture or what a LUT is.
 
R

Rick C

Guest
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 2:54:48 PM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:00:55 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 1:04:12 AM UTC-5, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 8:30:27 PM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail..com wrote:
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 9:25:25 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 7:44:37 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

Neither AMD or INTC has a significant technological edge over the other (XLNX is in a separate business altogether, but I doubt that Sloman knows that).

Intel and AMD make processors (amongst other things - I was an early user of AMD\'s Taxichip serial link devices, and didn\'t enjoy coping with the early changes to their data sheet). There are lots of different ways of putting processors together, and Intel did it first, and stuck to maintaining backwards compatibilty for a bit too long.

ARM is also in that business,and they espoused a different architecture early on which did seem to give them a technological advantage. I never met Andy Hopper (when I was living and working in Cambridge UK), but he seemed to have contributed some of it.

Xilinx make programmable devices. I didn\'t like them much because they were power hogs, and much preferred the Philips Coolrunner parts which Philips eventually sold to Xilinx.
Yes, Xilinx parts were relative power hogs because they used a very different process with an emphasis on speed. Coolrunner parts were also a different architecture (CPLD like) which provided much more consistent timing and routing, but maxed out pricing very quickly with size (think O(N^2) rather than ~O(N log(N))). The Coolrunner parts were ultimately replaced by the very similar Coolrunner II devices but still had the high price penalty at the high end. If you only needed a smaller part you would be very unlikely to be looking at FPGAs anyway.
Some investors are willing to pay MUCH more for AMD earnings than INTC, but that is the equivalent of the king not wearing clothes - at some point they will figure out they\'ve been had.
Your opinion on the subject isn\'t all that interesting - you are an ill-informed idiot, after all.
More that he gets an idea in his head and refuses to consider any information that contradicts that idea. Ok, maybe you are right.

--

Rick C.

++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Xilinx parts will never be very low power because so much of the real estate doesn\'t do much, if anything. They use a high-speed RAM to do the function of a simple gate.
Not sure what that has to do with anything about the stock value. Even ignoring that, the statement is untrue. It does show you don\'t know much about FPGAs or possibly you simply don\'t understand the nature of digital semiconductors and power dissipation. Most likely both are the case.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
No, it shows that YOU don\'t know much about how Xilinx has implemented their architecture or what a LUT is.
Your reply shows how ignorant you are of why FPGAs exist. You probably don\'t realize that many devices sold as CPLDs are actually designed as FPGAs internally.

The remark you made about the wasted power in the unused real estate is pretty funny. Was that intended as a joke?

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
Toggle Sidebar

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top