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: pgerassi who wrote (59506)	10/21/2001 12:47:53 AM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 275872

Re: "And that gets customers on your side by making them want to do it rather than having to shove it down their throats. The later course almost always fails sooner or later." OK - start naming a few of these customers.

To: pgerassi who wrote (59506)	10/21/2001 3:17:58 AM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

pgerassi, Intel had a 20 year strategy of compatibility that, if I'm not mistaken, made a few bucks for shareholders over the years. A few years ago they got "paranoid" and decided to throw away the winning strategy in favor of some HP ideas for a new architecture that would (they believed) enable a great leap forward in performance. And so here we are. The great leap forward in performance has not materialized, of course, and nobody expects that it will, but we are still stuck with this IA-64 thing that Intel has to try to sell. Nowadays the 64-bitness of IA-64 is emphasized (as opposed to the performance), only why do you need a new architecture for that? You don't. MIPS and SPARC and PowerPC all started out as 32-bits. Adding a 64-bit mode is not a big deal. It's just another feature, which operating systems and applications can use if they find it useful. If not, no problem; it doesn't cost much.

To: pgerassi who wrote (59506)	10/21/2001 10:45:23 AM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>Incompatible replacements need 3 times, but compatible ones can do it with as little as 50% more so long as the old mode is at least as fast. If the new and old modes are faster on the new one than the old one, an increase of 25% is all that is needed. If the performance is the same, but the price is 1/3 and the software already exists for the alternate platform, the changeover is quick (eating from bottom to the top has been done, just look at the 386 and later CPUs).< Hammer is only compatible in the traditional Xeon market, not the 64-bit Alpha/MIPS/PA-RISC market. If Hammer delivers on its promise, even if this delivery is only in 32-bit mode, by the time K9 arrives Hammer should own the traditional Xeon market. But, at least until 2005, Itanium is not targeted at the Xeon market (except the upper end eight-way configurations). Intel pulling Xeon out of this particular market could be a major blunder, as it could open it up to Hammer instead of leaving the field clear for Itanium, as Intel hopes. But, Hammer will not penetrate the traditional Alpha/MIPS/PA-RISC market that is the primary target of Itanium until at least 2005.