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: TGPTNDR who wrote (80996)	5/29/2002 8:22:22 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

TGPTNDR, Re: I'd ask "Why would you want to run any bit code on your Itanium?" The 701/1350 SPEC scores seem to shed some light on this question, though I'm still waiting to see how it will perform in transaction processing. Looks like Itanium 2 will already blow past Alpha and PA-RISC (as it was intended to, which explains why both parts of HPQ were so firmly committed to Itanium development), but now it even seems set to give Power4 a run for its money. wbmw

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (80996)	5/29/2002 9:05:55 PM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

The x86-16 to x86-32 went much faster than most of the 'PROs' thought it would. The P-Pro was a 'Server Only' chip for as long as it took to catch up to a Pentium 125 in 16 bit software. That was about when the developers started putting it on their desktops with Windows NT. It'd still run most of the old stuff and excelled at the new stuff. It'll be the same this time around, imo. Not even Intel believes that. You should be comparing the x86->Itanium transition with the x86->MIPS transition, the x86->PowerPC transition, and the x86->Alpha transition. (What? You mean those "transitions" didn't happen? Well, why not?)