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 (81163)	5/31/2002 1:48:14 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 275872

dumbmoney, Re: "First, I'm not an AMDroid." I shouldn't have implied that you were. But with all the "Itanic", "Sink or Swim", and "Turd" comments, it's hard to tell AMDroid from "concerned investor". Traditionally, it's been the former who prefers to use such childish wording, while most investors are just looking to make money. Your comment apparently threw me off. wbmw

To: dumbmoney who wrote (81163)	5/31/2002 2:00:21 PM
From: TGPTNDR	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

DM, Re: <Yahmill(sic) is bad for AMD (unless it's compatible with x86-64, which I regard as unlikely).> I think Yamhill is bad for AMD in any case. It'd be better for AMD if Intel just fired the whole pack of folks that are working on Yamhill. IMO, Yamhill is worse for AMD if it includes X86-64 instructions. And EVEN WORSER if it includes NEW, IMPROVED extensions, IX86-64 -- and MSFT builds a Window for it. AND WORSEST if they stick some of the IA-64 stuff in there. But that'd be way unlikely, IMO, 'cause -- well, just because. But could I ask why you think Yamhill might have a 64-bit instruction set that's not -- at most -- a superset of X86-64? tgptndr