discussion forum


message

Name: Christian Ludloff
eMail: ludloff@sandpile.org
Date: March 29, 2002 at 13:45:08
Subject: Re: Yamhill
In Reply To: Re: Yamhill by
Belthor on March 29, 2002 at 03:30:08
Text: | By the way, IA-64 is not Intel's response to AMD's x86-64.
| Yamhill is supposed to be that.
|
| [...]
|
| Personally, I find IA-64 cpus big stupid monsters with huge resources who
| have to be told what to do, IA-32 and x86-64 cpus retarded children who
| desperately try to rearrange the pieces of the puzzle and Transmeta cpus
| some small entities with greater intelligence than their size who strive
| to deeply analyze the nature of the code and get the most out of their
| limited resources.

Of course IA-64 and x86-64 come from completely different directions.

While the former is the result of Intel's (old) belief, that IA-32 is
gonna die eventually, the latter is the result of AMD's belief in x86
and its huge developer/customer basis, combined with the realization,
that AMD's resources are too limited to pursue an architecture that's
completely new.

Personally I think that Intel did miss a couple of inflection points,
including the arrival of K7. However, the vote on AMD is still out --
only time will tell.

In any case, it's gonna be interesting to watch. :)

--
CL
optional link: sandpile.org


post a followup message
(Be nice... or be blocked. Be technical... or be erased.)

Name: optional link title:
eMail: optional link URL:
Subject: optional image URL:
  Insert line breaks by hand when only about one inch remains at the right side. Otherwise your message will be unreadable.
Text:
 

  Note: The above eMail form fields may look unaligned if you are using a browser other than Netscape Navigator version 3.0.


currently posted followup messages
(You may have to press the RELOAD button of your browser.)


main page