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: Charles Gryba who wrote (152291)	12/12/2001 4:11:58 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Constantine, thanks for the good laugh. <EOM>

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (152291)	12/12/2001 4:17:04 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

wbmw, ELmer, remember our long drawn discussion about Intel having to build an x86-64 variant? Here's a possibility for you: While I know absolutely nothing about any Intel x86-64 effort, it wouldn't surprise me. However that article was one of the most incoherent rambling spews of nonsense to come from Mike in a long time. EP

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (152291)	12/12/2001 4:18:37 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Constantine, that article is filled with so many inconsistencies, it's not even worth going into all of them. Magee seems to believe that engineers are trying to get McKinley on .13u ("Although INTC representatives insist that the McKinley is being produced on .18 micron processes, we think that the fab folk are experimenting with McKinley on .13 micron.") But, either the process is doomed to not work on an Itanium processor ("IA-64 is not designed for the "juicy process", we understand. There are leakages and brokages going on that the boys down in Fort Worth don't like a cotton dogging bit.") Or else Intel has foreseen that Itanium processors won't be stealing process space from mainstream chips ("We also believe that means a big scrap between the IA-32 and IA-64 wings of the company - who have always fought hammer and tongs so to speak anyway. The McKinleyites want .13 micron space but because of the squeeze are lacking silicon to debug.". At no point is there even mention of Madison, which is supposed to be Intel's McKinley shrink to .13u, and which is still scheduled for a first half 2003 launch, according to several public announcements. If Magee's sources for Intel dabbling with x86-64 are the same as the ones forecasting Intel's ability to get McKinley on a .13u process, you can forget about fixing any kind of reliability to these rumors. wbmw