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: Windsock who wrote (57501)	10/6/2001 9:06:23 PM
From: jcholewa	Respond to of 275872

> Must people caught uttering a total falsehood, at least > act ashamed. You on the other hand just change the > subject and dig a deeper credibility hole. Technically, what Dan said was true (I think). While Merced (Itanium) is backwards compatible with the x86 architecture, the IPF (nee IA-64) architecture is not backwards compatible with the x86 architecture. And Dan specified the architecture, not the microarchitecture (though I suspect that he did this more by luck than by a masterful understanding of the discrepancies between the two). > Your statement on the speed of IA32 execution is another > total falsehood. It's more an exaggeration. Itanium performs very slowly on x86 code according to third party tests; however, the most recent third party tests are very old, so I wouldn't mind seeing a do-over with x86 software.     -JC

To: Windsock who wrote (57501)	10/7/2001 9:10:35 AM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

Windsock: Your [Dan's] statement on the speed of IA32 execution is another total falsehood. The only example of IA32 performance on the Itanium that I've seen published on the web pegged performance in the P90 - P120 area. As JC notes, however, this was a while ago and things have likely progressed since. -fyo