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 (69586)	1/30/2002 6:59:56 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dale, can you explain what you mean by "triadic" instructions? Thanks. wbmw

To: dale_laroy who wrote (69586)	1/30/2002 7:13:26 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 275872

Dale I am not sure what "hypothetical architecture" you are talking about but it seems that your assumption is that intel wanted to follow amd. Regards -Albert

To: dale_laroy who wrote (69586)	1/31/2002 1:19:05 AM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

<When AMD first preannounced Hammer, they stated that K8 would have triadic instructions. My guess is that Intel will have based their own x86-64 architecture upon this hypothetical architecture and as a result, Intel's x86-64 implementation will have a triadic instruction set. > There were no triadic instructions outside of TFP, which were quickly squashed. Besides, even if there was such proposal, why would Intel pattern their ISA after AMD's throw away sketches? The only reason for Intel to follow x86-64 compatibility would be Microsoft telling Intel that there would be no support for another x86-64 ISA. I know that was the attitude of the OS group. Let's hope that they have prevailed. Kap