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: dumbmoney who wrote (81130)	5/30/2002 11:38:09 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

But it won't be the "only other choice" after Intel adds 64-bit addressing to its x86 processors. Other than hype (obviously convincing evidence to Droids) what evidence do you have that Intel is adding 64-bit addressing to their x86 processors? EP

To: dumbmoney who wrote (81130)	5/31/2002 11:34:56 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

dumbmoney, Re: "Correct. But it won't be the "only other choice" after Intel adds 64-bit addressing to its x86 processors. Then Itanium will have to sink or swim on the merits." Weren't you AMDroids rejoicing a week or so ago when rumor suggested that Prescott would not have Yamhill technology? I'm confused. It seems the prospect of Yamhill makes AMDroids either excited, because to them it means the end of Itanium, or scared, because it means some serious competition to x86-64. Who knows, maybe you guys will get lucky, and Intel will only release that technology to kill IA-64, and then make it compatible with x86-64 so that Intel inadvertently ends up being AMD's lapdog for the next several generations of microprocessors. That sounds like Intel, doesn't it? I mean, as the AMDroids naively say: "Here's to 'hoping'." wbmw