Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
so...pointers point to memory locations. if a driver wants to put its results somewhere beyond 4g a code change is required to use ulonglong?
doesn't sound like a "simple recompile" to me...
gb
An interesting fact to note is that the AMD-64 uses the “longlong pointer” architecture model. This means that while pointers become 64-bit values (with a data type of ULONGLONG), the ULONG data type stays 32-bits. This significantly eases the process of moving your driver to the AMD-64. Note that this is different from some Unix systems, where when moving from a 32-bit to a 64-bit system the LONG data type becomes 64-bits long.
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=243
I'd be surprised if AMD didn't use some form of the MESI protocol: Modified, Exclusive, Shared, Invalid are the states after which it is named.
It isn't dependent on any particular bus structure. If that is what they are using there is plenty of lit on how it works.
gb
Networking stats:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10770
gb
Dan: How is this a response to my assertion?
gb
Haddock: re: so they know how.
If you are referring to disabling cache to "produce" Thornton fine.
My question is whether anyone has any evidence that this has been done for other logic blocks and functional units as was speculated.
gb
Dan3: everything else can stay pretty much the same.
Likewise on the Itanium. Anyone considering this class of processor doubtless has lots of Intel based servers that will continue to run. If they don't then they have no software base with which to remain compatible.
For those apps that require 64bits they run them on the Itanium.
gb
Petz/Joe: re: other areas of die can have defects that still allow the unit to be sold.
This hypothesis is backed up by what data? Does anyone have a paper from AMD indicating that fuse logic to perform this has been included?
tnx
gb
yb
i don't know a single person who plays ut. i know many who do video capture and compression. it all depends on your age group i suppose.
gb
Elmer: Regarding covered calls.
I've wrote some calls which were well into the money by today but don't see any assignment activity as of close of business yesterday. Even though triple witch was yesterday volume was pretty light so I don't think it is a "catch up" issue.
Yesterday was the last day to trade. Today is expiration. Do you know the last day for assignment is? Is it today or yesterday?
If I didn't get assigned then I got the premium and kept the stock!
tnx
gb
actually if you've followed the career of phil hester the newisys design point is understandable...
gb
sgolds:
according to all the conf calls i've listened since this was announce both amd and fuji will sell the product with their own sales forces.
gb
I'm a little confused about how the JV works on flash. IIRC, since it is consolidated in their books AMD will fab parts and charge itself and Fujitsu some transfer price. Then AMD and Fujitsu will then sell parts to the market. Will AMD show two lines in their quarterly report: flash parts profit/loss as built and flash parts as bought/sold? If not how could they properly bill Fujitsu for the profit/loss of the JV while consolidating in their books?
AMD and Fujitsu didn't exactly see eye to eye on Gresham funding. I wonder what will happen when AMD sends Fuji an end of quarter accounting that Fuji disagrees with...
gb
wbmw:
entirely possible but they might well save rebranding until they hit the tejas rather than a transitional chip. tejas would have the new platforms and a pinout with a bit more stability.
i believe tejas will have more new instructions as well.
nbd either way. running out of time to start the branding campaign however, before prescott comes out. seems like there would have been more substantive leaks by now.
iirc they do most brand announcements in april anyway to avoid holiday consumer selling season confusion.
gb
I doubt that Prescott will be P5 since it is mostly a shrink with some new instructions and have a transitional pinout.
Usually brand changes come with more radical microarchitecture change. Probably not Tejas either but more likely the new microarchitecture, Nahalem (?).
gb
Interesting commentary at Overclockers:
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00419/
gb
Dan3: With Itanium you add an Itanium server and continue to run the 32 bit apps right where they probably are: on a Xeon server.
gb
NAS: Sun's share in the mid to large server market is significant and would be a nice place to take share for Intel.
gb
Carl:
Sounds like you did very well by those you now accuse of being thieves. How do you explain this?
gb
borusa:
i notice you conveniently left out the return to shareholders in the form of appreciation of the stock price. the dotcom bubble was not of intel's making nor was the price acceleration and subsequent collapse due to the practice of giving out stock options.
the point is that the employees are given stock options as part of their compensation. do you want to pay them to be just wage laborers or would you have them committed to the growth of the company through options?
if your arguement is with executive compensation then vote on that rather than stock options.
gb
Carl
The same folks you accuse of "stealing the company" have been running it for all of its existence. During that time they have grown it from being a geeky curiousity that sold memory chips to the largest semiconductor company in the world with one of the most recognized brands and a Dow Ind 30 component.
I wish some of the folks who advocate massive overhaul in Intel's compensation plan would take a moment to consider how that plan has helped grow the company to its position in the industry and the role options have played in nearly every hard working engineer's compensation package and resultant retention at least since 1982 when I joined.
Seems like a bunch of folks would like to kill the goose that has for over 30 years laid golden eggs for shareholders.
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=INTC&script=300&layout=-6
click on all data then redraw.
And yes Intel went through the bubble driven by the dotcom craze and yes $18/sh seems like a small amount compared to the $75 it once crazily was.
Is your beef that you bought at $75?
I don't get it...
gb
I watched the webcast live. It was 16 2P systems clustered together.
gb
Probably a gift to charity. It happens to be a very tax efficient way of giving.
gb
Just for the record...
I do own INTC, nearly all acquired through Intel Stock Purchase Plan and Options. I exercised and held. I never was more than a first level manager.
The options were a heavy incentive to work hard and remain with the company. In fact, at least before August 2000, they were known as Golden Handcuffs.
From personal experience I still think options are an excellent employee incentive.
I'm now retired.
gb
Dew:
If you don't like the way INTC handles options then why not sell the shares you own. Or do you own INTC?
gb
I've always been curious about the posters who are vehemently opposed to the way INTC handles their options. Do they actually own any INTC and disagree with the handling of options? If so why don't they just sell and buy something else they agree with?
I don't get it...
golfbum