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: Dan3 who wrote (140140)	7/25/2001 10:15:19 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, <If the "64 bitness" of the hammers is any where near as much of a marketing benefit as the "32 bitness" of the 386 was, AMD may even gain the high-end desktop for real.> I hope your timeframe is long, because 386 was out for many years before the 32-bit extensions really started to take hold. Tenchusatsu

To: Dan3 who wrote (140140)	7/25/2001 10:28:02 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, It looks as if Intel has made a decision to bleed themselves dry in the hope of being last man standing. Too bad they can never succced with that strat because AMD has too many other income streams, including some that Intel lacks(like high end laptop parts) Bill

To: Dan3 who wrote (140140)	7/25/2001 10:56:11 PM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

>If the "64 bitness" of the hammers is any where near as much of a marketing benefit as the "32 bitness" of the 386 was, AMD may even gain the high-end desktop for real.< While true, that is a very big if. To begin with, the major selling point of 386 over 286 was for years the power of virtual 86 and virtual 286 modes. What comparable utility does x86-64 offer? I look for x86-64 to remain virtually unused until K9 ships.