Dale Re...I would hardly call any of the Yamhill press news, it is barely more than rumor. <<<<<<
It was on one of the sites, maybe CNBC, that Intel was going to confirm the Yamhill rumors next week.
For Intel customers to address a large physical address space, they will still need Itanium.<<<<<<<
Which makes a lot of sense; as the biggest reason for 64 bits, is the additional address space. If Intel does that, Intel could well cripple both. Intel will hurt acceptance of Itanium, by supporting another 64 bit competitor; by crippling the address space, P4 will be at a decided disadvantage to Hammer.
None of the rumors suggest that Intel has any plans of killing of Itanium. Itanium will, if it dies, do so without any push by Intel.<
Itanium, at this stage, needs every ounce of help Intel can muster. Intel, by not standing solidly behind Itanium, will assure Itaniums demise.
. If Intel loses their ability to demand a premium for their processors, and is reduced to a combined total of IA64 and x86 processors equal to the number of Clawhammer units AMD is then selling, can they make a profit while maintaining four 300mm fabs? <<<<<<<
In a price war, Intel's big die theory will be a too big of a disadvantge for Intel to overcome; as the mean and lean usually win. |
