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 (73723)	3/6/2002 1:56:15 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Petz, Re: "Why would Intel not want it to be implemented ASAP, since AMD is ahead in this area?" AMD is not ahead in this area. They currently have zero software support, and one (conceivably two) OS support. Re: "If you are suggesting that i86-64 started a long, long time ago, I would say anything done without a specific core in mind is almost irrelevant." This is one possibility, and not one that should be discounted. But I agree the likelihood isn't as probable as some of the other possibilities (just as you recognize them as possibilities - not facts). Re: "64-bit capability, at least as it is implemented in the Hammer series, is not something that can be "added on" to a core like SSE. Hammer was conceived from the beginning as a 64-bit CPU." I don't see how this makes a difference. 64-bit x86 extensions or 128-bit SSE extensions - both require support from the decoders, the dispatch engine, probably in buffers and queues, and obviously in the execution units. x86-64 requires additional support in order to differentiate between processor modes, but other than that, x86-64 is not much larger of a chore than SSE. It sounds like you are claiming that Intel couldn't add 64-bit x86 extensions to a current processor core, since you think it needs to be designed in from the beginning. You see SSE as something entirely different. I disagree. Re: "I agree with you that Intel will continue IA-64 at least through the McKinley, and that i86-64 has much less to do with the success or failure of Itanic/McKinley than it has to do with the competitiveness of Intel's IA32 offerings compared to AMD." Thank you. But as a side note, there are several cores already in the design phase for IA-64. Madison and Deerfield are due out next year on a more refined .13u process, and Montecito is already planned for 2004 on a .09u process. When you also consider McKinley, that's four products on three different process generations in three years. That's a hell of a design team for a core with a Plan B. wbmw