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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (4661)	8/11/2000 8:10:53 PM
From: semiconeng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

SemiconEng now, boys, stop fighting. Semi (can I call you that) provides a different point of view and it should be appreciated. Hummmmmm.... I ALMOST detect a bit of sarcasm there.... NAWWWWWW, must be the paranoia (gotta stop doing lunch with Andy). :-) Well, I have one of those nasty questions regarding "Intel said the Itanium and McKinley will run 32- and 64-bit programs seamlessly on the same chip hardware, using a bit switch to send 32-bit instructions to on-chip registers designed to operate in a compatibility mode. Waxman said there is no loss of performance when operating in the native 32-bit mode. 1) what does "will run 32- and 64-bit programs seamlessly" mean? I can say the same thing about alpha. Probably spinola for "Runs Both In Hardware", would be my guess. 2) "there is no loss of performance" That another one for the history books. No loss in performance as compared to what - itself? Regards -Albert I think what it means, is compared to a P3 clocked at the same speed. So if.... (did ya catch that IF, survivin?), Itanium does get introduced at the 800MHz speed several AMD Fans have speculated at, then it would only need to run 32 bit code as fast as a P3 800MHz, to make that statement true, now wouldn't it? Tricky Guys, those Intel People.... Huh? :-) SemiconEng