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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (99694)	2/23/2000 2:59:00 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 186894

Charles and JDN, Thanks. I will spend some time reading the Sun thread. At the least I'll know the competition better <g>. John

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (99694)	2/23/2000 3:12:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Charles, although this wasn't the main point of your post, I thought I'd address it anyway: <RISC has some inherent advantages over CISC, as well, even when the latter is implemented via the former. And Sun got on that wagon early enough that its considerable legacy of code has been able to maintain a high degree of continuity (in large measure both binary and source compatible).> I fail to see what those "inherent advantages" of RISC over CISC are in the real world. Already the UltraSparc II is being trounced in the benchmarks by Xeon. Intel's Xeon platforms are also turning out to be a much better price/performance solution than UltraSparc. In my mind, those "inherent advantages" that you talk about are largely theoretical, which is a far cry from practice. And speaking of which, UltraSparc is hardly the pinnacle of RISC. I'd consider Compaq/Digital's Alpha to be a much better RISC processor than UltraSparc, and in terms of performance, a much stronger competitor to Intel's Itanium than UltraSparc. Finally, the "legacy code" argument has been used before to argue against the transition to RISC, but that didn't stop Sun. Now that "legacy code" argument is one of the main FUD arguments against Intel's IA-64 and Itanium. However, the FUDsters ignore the fact that Itanium will still remain backward-compatible with IA-32. And backward-compatibility with IA-32 has been Intel's gold mine for years and years. Tenchusatsu