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: hmaly who wrote (69143)	1/27/2002 1:00:31 AM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

>In this case, a lot of people including Dell, agree with us. Or are you still trying to claim that Itanium is selling like hotcakes. No you say, but Merced will. If Intel really was confidant of that, why the backup plan at Yawmill. If your good, you don't need a backup. Did AMd have a backup for Athlon, or Hammer?< AMD most certainly did have a backup plan for Athlon. It was called K6-2+. And they have a backup plan for Hammer. It is called Barton. As for an alternative 64-bit architechture, AMD has licensed Alpha, but can't afford to develop it. By contrast, Intel can afford to develop backup architectures, and would be foolish not to. Make no mistake, IA64 will succeed, but perhaps not to Intel's liking. Transitioning IA64 to the desktop by 2006, as Intel intends, or even 2010, could be more than even Intel can achieve. It is likely, but by no means certain, that Intel will be forced to embrace x86-64 for the desktop (or their own incompatible extension to IA32), while successfully marketing IA64 in the server and workstation market.

To: hmaly who wrote (69143)	1/27/2002 2:16:27 AM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Stick to mixing cement. You might have a clue there. EP

To: hmaly who wrote (69143)	1/27/2002 7:08:14 PM
From: ptanner	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

hmaly, re: "When you are trying to make a point, you should at least try to be close to the truth. AMD made 4.5 million Athlons last quarter, most of them xp. Why the lying??" Elmer wasn't lying. You should re-read what Elmer wrote: "The XP which AMD can only make in "10s of thousands" is almost as fast as Intel's high volume NWs so that makes things great." Elmer's statement concerned only the XP 2000+ volumes relative to the new NWs. I had to read the sentence twice the first time. -PT