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 (140145)	7/25/2001 11:50:30 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, <What would you do if you were presented with the choice of a 32-bit or 64-bit system if the 64-bit system cost $100 to $200 more? Even if you knew that there was little or no software that would take advantage of the 64-bit system?> That depends. If all I wanted to do was pay $800 for a system (a market segment that has traditionally been AMD's stronghold), I'd probably stick with the 32-bit. But if I was going to pay over $2000, I think a $100 premium would be trivial. But what makes you think AMD's marketing department can even get a $100 premium for a 64-bit marketing bullet? They're still having a hard time selling Athlons at prices similar to that of Pentium 4 at equivalent clock speeds. The best they can hope for is adding x86-64 to all of their processors from top to bottom, get the market share, and convince Microsoft to put x86-64 support in their next desktop OS (Windows XP 2 or whatever). And that brings me back to my original question of timeframe. Even if processors with x86-64 made up 30% of the market, it will still take at least two years after that happens before any real software support (i.e. OS AND mainstream apps) gains momentum. Unless, of course, AMD ditches their "Build it and they will come" approach to marketing, but we all know that's highly unlikely. Tenchusatsu