wbmw,
Sticking to the *direct quote* and the journalist's commentary, I can only deduce that HP's IA-64 chief is aware of some kind of technology that could give extra life to the IA-32 line. He doesn't say it's a 64-bit x86 extension, but he does mention AMD, so I can see how it would give that impression. However, he also mentions that Intel has 6 or 7 IA-32 projects that could extend the life of the IA-32 architecture, and given the resources needed for any given CPU project, I can only surmise that few if any of these must have a lot of work devoted to it. As he says, Intel is a paranoid bunch, but it doesn't mean any of these technologies has actually left the drawing board.
It reminds me of a joke Kap posted:
Two friends are drinking. One is complaining that he suspects his wife in infidelity, but he is not quite sure. When pressed for details he reveals that he once followed her to a house. He then saw a handsome young man open the door and kiss her. Torn by doubt the husband was watching through a window as they entered the bedroom. To his dismay they turned off the light and he couldn't see what happened next.
The friends scratch their heads, click their tongs and say: "So the mystery continues"
Message 14444331
Ok, if you want to stick to direct quotes, here is one for you:
Jim agrees. " IA32 will provide a phenomenal value proposition - for a decade - but the high end is where Intel is trying to get into, that's the focus, and a Yamhill extension doesn't provide that the reliability and scaling that IA-64 offers. That's built into IA-64. IPF is already 64 bits; you can plug-it in down the road; the 64bitness is already there."
Why would he compare Yamhill to IA-64? What is more reasonable to compare to IA-64, another 64 bit instruction set, 64 bit CPU, bag of potatoes?
I can only deduce that HP's IA-64 chief is aware of some kind of technology that could give extra life to the IA-32 line. He doesn't say it's a 64-bit x86 extension.
Gee, HP's director of marketing for IA-64 (IA-64 co-developer) is only aware of some extensions to IA-32? I guess if it was SSE-3, it would be explainable, this is something that could cost him his job of being director of marketing for IA-64, so can bet that he is well aware of what Yamhill is. He did not call Register demanding they retract the story, because he was quoted out of context.
I am completely puzzled at your refusal to acknowledge the obvious, which is that tye Yamhill project exists, that it involves adding 64bit capability to Intel's 32 bit processors, plan B if Itanium fails.
Intel obviously is doing all that is within their power to hide the Yamhill technology (while they are not sure if Itanium line is going to make it or not). Why would you, as an independent investor, interested in both companies why would you go to all these contortions to tow Intel line? Rather than do the opposite, which is to try to dig out the information, so that you can make a more informed investment decisions?
Joe |
