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: Scumbria who wrote (134798)	5/13/2001 2:52:24 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, Really? Which one?

To: Scumbria who wrote (134798)	5/13/2001 3:38:14 PM
From: Robert Salasidis	Respond to of 186894

There are also 32 bit CPUs that draw .25W and cost about the same or less than 10$. I don't see anyone using those as highend multiprocessor server replacements do you? The point of the whole discussion without diverging off topic is that the Itanium will have a select market that it will better serve than any current 32 bit design.

To: Scumbria who wrote (134798)	5/13/2001 4:33:45 PM
From: pheilman_	Respond to of 186894

There are 64 bit CPU's available that cost $10 and draw about 1 watt. I think this is a significant issue for the Itanium. As long as Intel made upward compatible processors the gigantic base of installed software ensured their success. If they stray from this path, their processors are evaluated the same as any other processor. So, does the Itanium run legacy code? Faster than some other 64 bit processor using translation like Transmeta? It has always been galling for the Embedded guys to make very fast processors and then have to sell them for $15. At the beginning of an embedded project there is a decision made as to what processor to use based on cost, speed and experience. As long as Intel made x86s there was no question.