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 (66060)	12/20/2001 8:34:53 PM
From: Charles Gryba	Respond to of 275872

Pete the longer it takes for hammer to come out the more of a foothold IA-64 takes. I am really curious about McKinley.I still think that all the big iron legacy software will take a LONG time to port to IA-64 ( and the actual performance benefits are still theoretical ) and that's why no one is making the leap of faith that's required. C

To: pgerassi who wrote (66060)	12/20/2001 9:53:36 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Pete: If Hammer sells more than 1 million CPUs, IA-64 is dead, plain and simple. All large IA-64 servers could be replaced far more cheaply by clustered Hammer servers. They have not enough performance against even Athlon MPs and Xeons, much less Hammers. In terms of bang for buck, Xeons already outstrip UltraSparcs (all versions) and Power3s (and Power2s, for that matter). Why are these other chips still sold then? Why do they still have significant market share? Because speed isn't everything! The CPUs need to be hot-swappable, have tons of error-correction and other RAS features built in. Xeon doesn't provide that now. Hammer won't provide it, either. Itanium will. I'm not saying Itanium will be a success. Just that I cannot see how Hammer could possibly compete in the same space. -fyo