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 (86291)	8/2/2002 7:37:26 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Petz, how can one argue with the idiocy of AMDroid logic? You say: "Dan's estimate of a 5-year Itanium delay is more accurate than yours of a 2-year delay. You admit Dan found a link which said Itanium would be available 1998." That depends on whose expectations you are talking about. I don't know what article Dan has shown (except that I know about it from Maui's post), but the earliest available press release from Intel was in 1997, as I have shown, and in that press release, Intel said to expect a launch in 1999. As far as I'm concerned, expectations from anyone else, including anecdotal journalism, is irrelevant. Since Itanium eventually started shipping as a complete product in May, 2001, that makes the complete delay two years, by regular math (AMDroid QuantiMath does not count). unless you can show me a press release that's dated earlier with official information, I believe the press release that I found is the most accurate basis for information. The other half of your assumption is the following: "In reality Itanium I was never a real product because its cost/performance was so bad that the only computers with Itanium I's are free samples given by Intel to universities, etc." First, you seem to assume that Itanium never sold for revenue. Where have you seen this? Do you happen to have a source, or is it just your AMDroid intuition? Intel has prices listed for Itanium, and according to press releases, many early adopters did end up purchasing Itanium based systems. Also, the performance and price of the systems were not sufficient for many markets, but for some, there were early adopters that were quite pleased with the added productivity and lower costs compared to their previous infrastructure. You can read the testimonials from Compaq, HP, and others - there are dozens that have flattering things to say. Of course, these early adopters are bound to be given extra assistance by Intel or the OEMs, but that doesn't mean that the hardware was sold for free. Where are your links that say otherwise? Lastly, what does this mean: "If you are going to count Itanium I as a product, then you have to count Clawhammer and Sledgehammer as being already released." You're going to have to translate this piece of AMDroid garbage for me, since I really don't see how the two relate. Intel has received revenue for Itanium ever since December of 2000, when it began pilot shipments. It was announced in multiple analyst conferences, and no doubt in the news as well, that Intel intended to ship pilot systems for revenue. The official release date was eventually May, 2001, and that's when Compaq first started offering complete solutions. It was a full fledged launch, as far as I can see, and as I said, Compaq has multiple testimonials on their web site describing positive experiences from their customers that bought Itanium based systems. Since when has Clawhammer or Sledgehammer shipped for revenue? Outside of some low speed samples, none of the Hammer products yet exist. Further, AMD does not plan to launch until early 2003. So why should we count Clawhammer and Sledgehammer as being released products, except that it might make your AMDroid fantasies come true? So far, I have been the one to present links to multiple press releases, giving a detailed timeline of Itanium development, if you are smart enough to put it together. So far, you have given me nothing but assumptions without anything to back them up. Unless you wish to continue with some hard data, there is little point is trying to defeat your assumptions. wbmw