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: Petz who wrote (96152)	3/1/2000 7:15:00 PM
From: Epinephrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576827

RE: <No, converting IA-32 applications to Sledgehammer will be trivial compared to converting them to Itanium.> John (can I call you Petz?) From my understanding this is the true advantage that Sledghammer has over Itanium, By relying on compiler time code optimization rather than flexible execution time optimization Intel is in effect surrendering control of the performance of their processor to the developers that code for it. Once the code is compiled there is little that Itanium will do to further optimize it. If the coder stinks, the performance will stink. And as you mentioned porting an application to Itanium will require a skilled programmer with a well written compiler, porting an application to Sledgehammer will simply require a compiler, even if its not a great compiler. (since the processor takes a larger role in deciding how to execute the code in a non-EPIC architecture) These are my interpretations of information that I have seen so far anyway. Am I mistaken? Thanks, Epinephrine