Replies to post #4807 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[chipguy]

But I'd be interested in your--or anyone else's--opinion on how long (and what) it
will take for AMD64 to become entrenched and Yamhill-proof.

About as long it took 3Dnow to become SSE proof. Wait, AMD processors support
SSE. About as long as it took TFP to become SSE2 proof. No wait, AMD dropped
that from K8 early on in favor of SSE2.

Let's just say longer than it will take AMD to add IPF compatibility to K9 ;^)

[sgolds]

blauboad, how long for AMD64 to become Yamhill-proof? Three years. One year to establish the quality of the product, one year to build market momentum and one year to significantly increase production (perhaps on 65nm). I don't think we have three years - Intel will either succeed with Itanium (unlikely) or field their own Hammer competitor before then.

[borusa]

Blauboad, re: But I'd be interested in your--or anyone else's--opinion on how long (and what) it will take for AMD64 to become entrenched and Yamhill-proof.


Its incredible nothing seems to be in the pipeline. Last I heard from Intel was ~as needed. Yamhill-proof, probably not knowable till Yammer benchmarks start to leak. aHT may be the snag for Intel (assuming aHT and {PCI express ?} are incompatible). In my uneducated opinion, Micro$oft would not like to have two slightly different architectures to support (divied and conqure in reverse). There could be a time in the future when AMD and intel will not be able to run the same OS or other software, if AMD is capacity limited producing A64. Except that A64 is backward compabable with x86-32 software.

Please correct me if this speculation is flawed.