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: dale_laroy who wrote (69144)	1/27/2002 2:27:50 AM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 275872

That's assuming IBM and SUNW fade away which isn't likely. M.

To: dale_laroy who wrote (69144)	1/27/2002 2:33:56 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 275872

Dale Re...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.<<<<<<<< AFAIK, both the K6-2 and Barton are announced chips which would have been produced, whether Athlon was a success or not. Without a successful Athlon, does anyone doubt that AMD wouldn't be in there with K-Mart; K6-2 or no K6-2. Barton is an announced version of Palomino, not a replacement for Hammer. The difference is that Intel had no intention of announcing or producing the Yawmill chip, if IA-64 was successful. K6-2 and Barton will or were going to be produced, as an addition to Athlon, not an alternative. As for an alternative 64-bit architechture, AMD has licensed Alpha, but can't afford to develop it. <<<<<<< Why not? AMD has close to a billion dollars in the bank. AMD wouldn't be planning to spend more money on fabs etc. unless AMD was extremely confident of the future success of Hammer. Amd could put that money to use developing an alternative. By contrast, Intel can afford to develop backup architectures, and would be foolish not to. <<<<<< Yes and no. IA-64, unless McKinley is a rousing sucess; is on lifesupport now. The rumors of an alternative could be equivalent to pulling the plug prematurely. 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. <<<<<<<<< Bingo. That is what AMD did with K6-2 and Barton. Developed both with the intention of producing both. Instead of trying to baby IA-64, Intel should produce both and let the market decide. Don't predicate the production of the Yawmill chap based upon IA-64. Instead market them as 2 different classes of chips. If IA-64 has enough redeeming qualities, it will survive on its own. Same with Rambus. Intel should have put both chipsets out there right away, and let their customers decide.