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: maui_dude who wrote (63591)	11/13/2001 2:00:52 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I think Itanium is a controvesrial choice. It may eventually prevail, but if it does, it will be because of the sheer will of Intel, and because it may end up the last chips standing, not because of it's elegance, attractiveness, or demand. At this point, I don't think Intel will can Itanium. The cost of continuing the program is probably a fraction of the potential litigation cost (plus damages), that could potentially sink Intel. In a hypothetical situation of Intel pulling the plug on Itanium, the mounting losses of Intel's "partners" will turn these "partetners" into plaintiffs trying to recover the damages caused by misleading statements about Itanium. Because of this, I think Itanium will live on, and maybe even become a dominant processor one day, but it will be for reasons other than "Technical Excellence". Joe PS: Is it just me, or is PC Magazine going downhill. It was getting thinner and thinner, and this year, for the first time in some 15 years, I did not renew my subscription.

To: maui_dude who wrote (63591)	11/13/2001 2:20:44 PM
From: jcholewa	Respond to of 275872

> So, we had two years delay on Itanium. I disagree with the article's assertion of Merced's original release timeframe. I have no proof to back myself up, but I do have some degree of corroborating evidence: news.cnet.com (early 1999 release expected) news.cnet.com (1998 release expected) xs4all.nl (1997 release expected) As I stated before, this is not proof. I do believe, however, that these sources are somewhat reputable and that the given release projections at least from the two former links were from MDR, a group which typically gets their release dates from the companies themselves and not from blind speculation. Still, there's too much confusion here. Nonetheless, I would bet that the delay for Merced was certainly greater than two years. Currently, my best efforts suggest that a release somewhere in 2001 was originally pegged for the K8/Hammer microarchitecture. The expected date for release is now expected to be late in 2002, and there's a possibility that it may drift into early 2003. The math here states that this means Hammer is a year to a year and a half late. This is really, really, horribly awful. But it is by no means more than the delay of the Itanium, nor is it close to the delay of the Itanium (it's getting close to said delay if you accept the "mid-1999" as gospel). I think the USIII was originally expected to come out in 1950. Sun seems to like holding back their releases. ;)