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: Charles Gryba who wrote (71868)	2/18/2002 7:11:58 PM
From: dale_laroy	Respond to of 275872

>Hammer has no 1st tier OEM design wins or at least an indication that it's being considered for one.< I think that there is an indication that SUN is considering Hammer, but just and indication.

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (71868)	2/19/2002 11:04:33 AM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 275872

Dear Charles: The news that a number of MB makers and chipset makers announced products that use Hammer is a good indication that Hammer will be successful in getting design wins. IA-64 announced a lot of design wins but, that did not lead to sales. I think any company would rather have sales than announced design wins (except for those dot coms and the like). Besides, how many companies announce design wins to a CPU that is just being sampled. If there were such design wins this early, Hammer would turn out to be such selling success that ASPs would rise after its introduction even with increasing availability and AMD stockholders (like me) would be laughing all the way to the bank. Pete

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (71868)	2/19/2002 7:51:02 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Charles: I have serious reservations regarding Enterprise acceptance of IA-64. I don't think any of our many subsidiaries are even considering IA-64 as viable technology. While its slightly too early to tell, I think McKinley will have a decent shot of landing heavy-duty scientific calculation contracts. Merced was "ok", reaching around 700 in SPECfp (compared to almost 800 for 2.2GHz P4, with the latest UltraSPARC slightly higher and Alpha21264C & Power4 significantly ahead), but likely significantly hampered by the slow FSB (100MHz, IIRC). All scores here are single CPU results. Consider what McKinley might accomplish with significantly higher operating frequency, higher memory bandwidth, significantly higher FSB (4x, if my 100MHz is correct) and likely more L3 cache (Merced is equipped with 4MB L3 (off chip), which isn't a heck of a lot for this class of CPU). And that's discounting other architectural improvements and the almost certainly significant compiler gains. I assume McKinley system costs will be on roughly par with the top Sun systems and significantly below Power4 (this might depend on how heavily IBM chooses to push Power4 in the lower price-ranges (right now, the cheapest Power4 system will run a cool quarter million USD). IBM seems to have left Power3 to handle the mid-range and unless this changes by the time McKinley comes out, Intel would seem to have a pretty good shot at decent sales of McKinley. Remember, most of these FP scientific computing applications can be recompiled relatively easily and most companies / departments (in my experience, anyway) don't run a lot of different applications, so any porting work would be manageable. -fyo