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: gvatty who wrote (241917)	10/5/2007 2:11:56 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Gvatty, > And the difference is that TSMC will have 65nm devices in 2002, and Intel will have 45nm devices in 2003. Good post from Beamer demonstrating the absurdity of Milo's argument at the time. Tenchusatsu

To: gvatty who wrote (241917)	10/5/2007 2:19:24 PM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: And the difference is that TSMC will have 65nm devices in 2002, and Intel will have 45nm devices in 2003. I hope you realize that my quip was referring to transistor gate lengths (hence: "devices"), not the actual process node. The post was meant to illustrate the belief from the original poster that AMD would have 15nm process in 2009 (when in fact, the article referred once again to transistor gate dimension). If you bothered to look farther back in the conversation, you would recognize this clearly. Re: GV, none of the Itanium products are going to be high volume without a base of software. It really is that simple. When you see the infrastructure, you should also see a pick up in Itanium 2 sales. Yes, and I was right when I said this. Itanium sales did indeed pick up when software expanded, and today they are catching up to volumes of Power and SPARC, the last 2 architectures competing in the RISC segments. Do you notice a trend here, gvtty? You look up and post old posts of mine with the intention of discrediting me, but you are not smart enough to actually post things where I am proven to be wrong about anything. In fact, you build up my credibility even more with old posts that illustrate my prescience.