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 (81171)	5/31/2002 2:31:06 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

The logic is pretty simple. Intel has 80%+ market share, so whatever they do, the industry has to support, like it or not. If Intel's "x86-64" is not compatible, then it puts AMD in a bind. Software developers will not want to support both; computer buyers will not want to deal with the headaches. One will win out, and that will be Intel's, by virtue of their market share. Since everyone knows this, support for AMD's x86-64 will drop to almost nothing the moment Intel makes their announcement (never mind when it ships). Now you're making pretty good sense and I wonder why Intel didn't float this notion long ago? Must have been fear of derailing IA64. With the introduction of McKinley imminent I think it's time to let IA64 sink or swim on it's own merits and Intel should offer x86-64 (incompatable with Hammer of course) and let the market decide. EP

To: dumbmoney who wrote (81171)	5/31/2002 2:48:09 PM
From: nixtox	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

RE: The logic is pretty simple. Intel has 80%+ market share, so whatever they do, the industry has to support, like it or not. If Intel's "x86-64" is not compatible, then it puts AMD in a bind. Software developers will not want to support both; computer buyers will not want to deal with the headaches. One will win out, and that will be Intel's, by virtue of their market share. Since everyone knows this, support for AMD's x86-64 will drop to almost nothing the moment Intel makes their announcement (never mind when it ships). What if AMD X86-64 has been running for one year or more when Intel releases its own? Nick

To: dumbmoney who wrote (81171)	5/31/2002 3:04:17 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

RE:"Software developers will not want to support both; computer buyers will not want to deal with the headaches. One will win out, and that will be Intel's, by virtue of their market share. Since everyone knows this, support for AMD's x86-64 will drop to almost nothing the moment Intel makes their announcement (never mind when it ships)." Yep, just like 3D-now vs SSE iterations. Developers are all too willing to follow Intel even if they are following AMDs lead. Strangely enough, AMD seem hopeless to do anything about it. Jim

To: dumbmoney who wrote (81171)	5/31/2002 3:14:20 PM
From: kapkan4u	Respond to of 275872

<The logic is pretty simple. Intel has 80%+ market share, so whatever they do, the industry has to support, like it or not. If Intel's "x86-64" is not compatible, then it puts AMD in a bind. Software developers will not want to support both; computer buyers will not want to deal with the headaches. One will win out, and that will be Intel's, by virtue of their market share. Since everyone knows this, support for AMD's x86-64 will drop to almost nothing the moment Intel makes their announcement (never mind when it ships). I don't know why you say it would be bad for AMD if Intel copies x86-64 (with or without compatible extensions). That would be great for AMD (and incidentally, the whole PC industry).> I agree, but there is one nuance however. With x86-64 Microsoft has a gun firmly pointed to Intel's head and Microsoft likes the feeling of being able to pull the trigger at will. Kap

To: dumbmoney who wrote (81171)	5/31/2002 3:41:44 PM
From: TGPTNDR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

DM, Re: < I don't know why you say it would be bad for AMD if Intel copies x86-64 (with or without compatible extensions). That would be great for AMD (and incidentally, the whole PC industry).> IMO, it would be bad for AMD 'cause it would be better if Intel stuck with 32-bit for the PC market. To me it seems clear that within a couple of years 64-bit will OWN the desktop & small server markets. And I doubt that Itanic could get there that fast for a right price. I don't think Intel planned it 5 years ago, so I don't think they can do it now.(But maybe they can. God knows they've built the FABs for it.) Thus, I think that if Intel doesn't stick some kind of 64-bit STUFF(Use that word carefully, folks, I'm a professional) into their desktop/small server chips they're going to be handing big parts of the market to AMD. And that would be great. Anything else would be bad, in comparison. tgptndr PS. If you object to DM in the address let me know and I'll not use it again.

To: dumbmoney who wrote (81171)	5/31/2002 5:21:25 PM
From: niceguy767	Respond to of 275872

dumbmoney: "The logic is pretty simple. Intel has 80%+ market share, so whatever they do, the industry has to support, like it or not." Your livimg in the past...Athy levelled the playing field...Hammer, it seems, might well tip the field in AMD's favour...(If INTC's hardware cannot compete with AMD's Hammer, it won't matter what INTC does, they'll continue to lose marketshare as has been the case the past 3 years). "One will win out, and that will be Intel's, by virtue of their market share." Oh please!!!