Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[wbmw]

Haddock, I think Intel would have met with less resistance if they forced a 64-bit x86 architecture on the market, but I think they are making a better long term decision with IPF. My two comments are not necessarily contrary. Intel is not AMD, so they do play by a different set of rules. Imagine where they'd be today if all the money they spent on IPF went towards a 64-bit x86. It might have given the mainstream markets a mighty kick towards 64-bits, but I think Intel would have continued having trouble with the enterprise space. Strategically, adding new technology to penetrate a new market was better than adding the technology to their existing markets, at least IMO.

Re: 2: It's easy to move to 64 bits with Hammer because you can move your apps one at a time rather than all at once. This is a stronger argument to me.

Well, plenty of customers are already going to have 64-bit IPF versions of their software. That's the whole point of going after the big ticket ISVs like Oracle and SAP. Furthermore, I think the IA-32 EL will give customers a way to get more performance out of their 32-bit apps on Itanium architecture, thus allowing them to port one at a time, just like they could do with AMD.