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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles R who wrote (59263)	5/22/1999 1:19:00 PM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572859

<Chuck - re: Doesn't time to market favor a multi-threaded OS operating on multiple run-of-the-mill 64-bit processor systems instead of a EPIC kind of processor? Wouldn't it be a beast to verify McKinley and follow-on products and wouldn't that be their ultimate undoing? Why or Why not? Could you elaborate?> I will go even further and say that you don't need 64-bit processor to dominate the high-end server market. AMD needs to extend x86 K8 to 64-bit addressing and it will give McKinley big headaches. Kap

To: Charles R who wrote (59263)	5/22/1999 1:54:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572859

Chuck, An EPIC style architecture is particularly efficient at the redundant and repetitive tasks which servers carry out. The multi-threading can be largely managed by the compiler, and therefore does not require the high overhead of a multithreaded OS. If Compaq got committed to Alpha they might be able to steal the show, but I don't think that Compaq is managed coherently enough anymore for that to happen. I don't see the verification of McKinley as being a big problem, in fact it will probably be easier than any of their x86 CPUs (including Merced.) The delays in IA64 apparently have been more due to architectural/software issues than with hardware problems. Scumbria