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: Epinephrine who wrote (45130)	6/25/2001 6:50:41 PM
From: Gopher Broke	Respond to of 275872

If they can't even get a major OEM to sign on for a 100% fully compatible server chip how in the world will they gain any headway with a server chip whos major feature is a completely proprietary new instruction set? (an instruction set that has no installed base and has no semblance of nor any hope of gaining the critical mass necessary to build one.) You don't see the beauty of x86-64. It encompasses all the existing x86 installed server base, which I would guess is by far the largest installed base of all, certainly in terms of number of processors. What does your company use for their file servers? What about their web servers? What about all those service providers out there running Linux on x86 systems? Sure a lot of the big guys are Solaris shops, but this revolution will come from the little guys eating the dinner of the fat cats. There is no reason to spend gazillions on big iron when you can chuck a few commodity servers in a rack. Why do you think there is all this excitement about 1U servers and high density systems? The thrust these days is for farms of racks of low power systems. Itanium was not designed to play in this space. I am sure that with McKinley it is better than it used to be, but I suspect that Intel are still embarrassed about the power consumption of the monster they have created.