Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Process Boy who wrote (71482)	9/9/1999 6:41:00 AM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573927

If AMD embarks down the 64 bit path, will you levy the same criticism on AMD relative to diverting attention from their crucial K6/7 market? Why would they need to do this, if 64 bits is going to be a bust? If AMD does do 64, how do you see AMD driving their new 64 bit platform? A 64-bit extension to x86 makes sense for the same reasons the 32-bit extension made sense. Customers value compatibility and smooth upgrade paths. That is, after all, why the "ugly" x86 has been so successful. If the x86 continues to be popular, and there's no reason to think that it won't, eventually 64-bits of addressing will be demanded by the market. And if Intel doesn't do it, someone else will.

To: Process Boy who wrote (71482)	9/9/1999 10:41:00 AM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573927

PB, <Fortunately, the PPro core looks like it'll scale something like 5-6X its original clock speed, [Will the K7 scale to 3 gig ;-)) and still be competitive with the K7 platform in performance. > Competitive, like the K6-2 and K6-3 were with their Pentium equivalents. Not, much money in being compeititive, if you havne't noticed. The money is in being a leader. <Also, Intel has not diverted any attention from it's manufacturing machine or its process R&D. Like it or not, these are pretty powerful competitive weapons that are hard to ignore.> Agreed! this continues to be the bright spot. <I also don't take as lightly all of the OS and OEM support for Merced as you seem to. I also do not discount the funding Intel is putting into platform development. > Actually, I do not take it lightly at all. The support Intel has gained so far for IA-64 is nothing short of remarkable. However, I have seen many in the industry trying unsuccesfully to introduce a new instruction set and the odds are definitely not favorable. (even Intel had a preety high profile failure - remember?). If you doubt me, I suggest that you (or anyone else) post how many high profile new instruction sets were created over the last 20 years and see their relative market shares. <If AMD embarks down the 64 bit path, will you levy the same criticism on AMD relative to diverting attention from their crucial K6/7 market?> If AMD does x86 extensions, I will praise AMDs management for having the common sense to go down that path. If they go down the Alpha path, I will bw luke warm. If they go down any other path, I will probably codemn them to being a trading stock for ever. Also, I do not think that there is a K6/7 market. The market is for running increasingly complex and power hungry x86 instruction set compatible applications. <Why would they need to do this, if 64 bits is going to be a bust?> Who is saying 64 bits is going to be bust? Actually, 64-bits got a fast track to success due to the boom in WWW. <If AMD does do 64, how do you see AMD driving their new 64 bit platform?> If it is x86 extensions, then the evolution will be natural. The question then becomes, how soon will Intel follow AMD into that market. If they do Alpha, it will be a uphill road. If they do anything else, it is like p*****g in the ocean. PB, it occurred to me that you never presented your thoughts on why Intel is so far behind on its next generation core. For the record, Intel does a new x86 core roughly every 3 years. Now, the best case situation looks like it will be 5. Chuck