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: Joe NYC who wrote (110432)	5/11/2000 4:07:00 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574638

Jozef, My point is that the OS is nowhere being near ready. Itanium is already 2 to 3 years late, and the OS is not even in beta. Nowhere near ready? Summer is not soon enough, heck the chip won't even be out until Q3. Why does the software need to be out before the hardware? Exactly where should they be? Don't you know software is never ready/done - it just gets "released" warts and all. As for: It is taking forever to get Merced to work with some degree of stability at 800 MHz target, which would barely be competitive today. Really, hadn't heard that one. 800Mhz is very respectable for servers. I haven't seen a single schedule slip in Merced this year, have you? So how can it be late, given the restated schedule we've been through a thousand times already. Nothing has changed, yet you see an article that says what everyone knows - Microsoft is working on the new 64 bit OS, Intel has a test system out for some developers and the scope is widening via an official Microsoft beta this summer. That the OS won't ship until or with the IA-64 later this year. Nothing new in that artilce, atleast nothing new in a negative sense - just affirmation that things are really happening.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (110432)	5/11/2000 4:44:00 PM
From: Rob Young	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574638

" THe only other project that I have been following that had a similar execution was Cyrix MXi project. For every quarter that passed, the planned launch date was postponed one or more quarters. One of the reasons was that each delay made it uncompetitive, so the internal target for the performance of the chips was raised and launch delayed further. I see a parallel here. It is taking forever to get Merced to work with some degree of stability at 800 MHz target, which would barely be competitive today. If the launch date slips to 2001, 800 MHz will begin to look like a joke, as most processors will be > 1GHz, Foster and Mustang may be at 1.6 GHz." This is all so true and makes for interesting strategizing. For years the ill-informed (those that don't have the inclination nor will to study good benchmark data, i.e. Specmarks, FULL-DISCLOSURE tpmC results, etc.) have been relying on MHz as the all mighty performance gauge. After all, if it clocks faster it must perform faster, right? Now Intel is in the doubly sticky situation of touting true benchmark data (that they will trail in regarding competition) AND downplaying the MHz that Willamette, Foster and Athlons will be shipping at. We will really see how good their marketing department is this time round I suspect. Rob