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: Petz who wrote (73028)	3/3/2002 3:07:02 AM
From: peter_luc	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Banias out for Christmas - and other important news See this very interesting article by Eva Glass:http://www.theinquirer.net/03030201.htm A few quotes: "Banias is far further along the line than anyone suspected and certainly far further than INTC told the assembled masses" "Intel might ship it in customer machines in time for Christmas" "now the first Baniases will be modified Pentium 4s using a low leakage process" "The first chips won't be a major architectural change but future versions will use all that power management and low power stuff later along the line." "the top priority for all INTC engineers this year was low leakage processes" BTW: There is an article at DigiTimes called "Wistron confirmed as Dell Banais notebook supplier". This could indicate, too, that Banias is already far advanced. Since I am not a registered user of DigiTimes, however, I cannot read the article. Peter

To: Petz who wrote (73028)	3/3/2002 11:43:50 AM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>To do this, Intel would have to abandon Socket 478 and develop a whole new set of chipsets capable of handling the wider address bus. Motherboards would also have to support address bits that may never be enabled. There is no chance that all of this could even be ready by mid-03.< Bull! This is like saying that Intel had to develop a whole new set of suport chips for 386SX to support the wider address bus, instead of recycling the 286 pin-outs and signaling protocall. Certainly, Yamhill would be crippled relative to Clawhammer in a manner similar to the way 386SX was relative to 386DX, but this would not preclude Intel from introducing Yamhill with x86-64 support. >Another thing that doesn't make any sense is that, it will be at least March, 2003 before Intel even knows if Clawhammer is a "success." That is absolutely too late to get any kind of software support for a NEW instuction set, call it i86-64, before March, 2004.< Make that mid-2004 for adoption of hardware and sometime in 2007 for adoption of software and I might agree with you.