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: Paul Engel who wrote (100662)	3/10/2000 10:44:00 PM
From: Rob Young	Respond to of 186894

Paul, "This one clear mistake by Gwennap (ITanium to ship next year, not this year), you accept as correct." Oh? "More than 20 major system vendors and six operating-system vendors are committed to delivering IA-64 products when Itanium (code-named Merced) begins shipping next year." Guess he meant to type "this" and made a typo and got "next" in there somehow. "How transparently jealous you are." Oh? The EV68 will crank out over 60 SpecInt95 and over 110 SpecFp95 - 55 100 Base at 1 GHz! It could ship at 1.2+ GHz even before process tweaks like copper and/or SOI are applied. The more interesting score will be SPEC2K. Linley is a funny one... talking about Spec95 numbers when after this month you won't even be allowed to post Spec95, Spec2K from here out. Itanium has a 2.1 GB/s peak system interface (Willamette by comparison will have 3.2 GB/s) so Itanium will probably suffer going from Spec95 to Spec2K ( just like PIII did), check out how an Alpha "whupps" a Pentium in 2K numbers, but ties it with 95 numbers: Base numbers Dell PIII at 733 MHz spec2k = 336 spec95 = 35.3 Alpha ES40 at 667 MHz spec2k = 413 spec95 = 35.6 Also, Itanium sucks up about 150 watts versus 65 watts for EV68. If Itanium is really as successful as Linley "Merced" Gwennap predicts and IA-64 takes over PCs, then we should all invest in power companies beforehand. Rob

To: Paul Engel who wrote (100662)	3/11/2000 11:32:00 PM
From: Rob Young	Respond to of 186894

Paul, In all fairness .. going back and looking at Linley's piece .. it does seem a little clearer: This may not be a mis-statement: "More than 20 major system vendors and six operating-system vendors are committed to delivering IA-64 products when Itanium (code-named Merced) begins shipping next year." If you consider what he writes in the next paragraph: "After several slips, Itanium achieved first silicon in August 1999; prototypes are functioning well and are currently available. First production shipments will be in 2H00 at clock speeds of up to 800 MHz." So, they get enough parts in the hands of the few folks that are interested so they can bang away at them, make sure their boxes work and then 1Q2001 they go "volume" and ship volume parts... After all, everybody is designing their boxes and testing but you can't do a whole lot of verification if the parts you are working with now are running at 400 MHz (timing, etc.) besides what do you do for memory system testing if your CPU is running half-speed? So Intel ships 733 MHz parts in October but no one is shipping a box in November. They go volume with Itanium in 1Q2001. I mean what else for a plausible explanation? He surely proofreads his write-ups and to have the 2H00 Itanium production statement AFTER the "next" year part, seems deliberate to me. Since Linley has been following Merced since the beginning, (see photo link and his comments) Intel has been gracious to let him break Merced "good" news and Merced "bad" news... If I recall correctly, Linley let the world know that Merced slipped to 2000. Here he gets to do both, see red highlights: "We [what does he have a mouse in his pocket?] have increased our projections of the chip's SPEC_base performance to 50 int and 80 fp." Later: "market share in excess of 60% by 2003." Perhaps Linley is telling the world and dog, "don't expect an Itanium box this year." What do you think? Rob