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: Joe NYC who wrote (73660)	3/6/2002 11:37:09 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Joe, Re: "The message is not hidden any more. Intel has a project under way to add 64 bit extensions to x86-32 (following AMD's lead). It is a Plan B, since you must be aware of the fact that Intel already has a CPU 64 bit instruction set - Plan A." Just so that there is no confusion, let me repeat my stance. Either: A) Yamhill does not exist, despite the reference from only two people. B) Yamhill does exist, but only as some technology originally planned to happen distantly in the future. Your stance, as I understand it, is: C) Yamhill exists, it's a knee jerk reaction from Intel to stop the obvious AMD x86-64 threat, and it's being kept secret to not prematurely destroy the prospect of IA-64, but it will inevitably destroy the prospect of IA-64, though Intel is too stupid to realize this now. Of course, I may be wrong about your stance, but I think that pretty much sums it up. And all this you deduce simply from two casual mentions of this technology. Why don't you think about it for a second, instead of spending an hour of your time to catalogue the history of my denials, and consider your own denials. You are a big opponent against IA-64. That automatically gives you a bias in trying to understand the implications here. Second, you're an AMD investor that believes that anything bad that happens to Intel is good for AMD. Nothing wrong with that viewpoint, but it again clouds what you perceive as your "open mind". Personally, I don't think you're giving Intel enough credit to simply believe that this is Plan B, or that Intel has nothing up their sleeves to save Itanium. While it's obvious to you that you are right, it is obvious to me that you are wrong. But I won't argue the point any longer; I respect your differing opinion, and can only say that we will have to wait and see what ends up happening. No hard feelings if your predictions (or assumption) end up not coming true. wbmw