Replies to post #8309 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[sgolds]

yourbankruptcy, don't be so quick to agree! You can see in my post #8305 that Intel did make such a promise in 1994 and repeated it in 1997 - Itanium (Merced) workstations by 1999! It seems that our Intel folks here have selective memory when it comes to Itanium history.

When I worked at 3Com, back when Metcalfe (of Ethernet fame) ran the place, he had a favorite item he worked into his standard presentation: Factoids. A factoid, he would tell us, is any statement that is repeated by three different people. It would be then mistaken for a fact by listeners.

We have here a classic factoid - that Intel never promised a Merced workstation, and certainly not by the end of the last decade - repeated by all the Intel folks here until others believe them. Of course, Intel's own web site tells us a very different story.

Isn't the internet great?

[blauboad]

Sgolds has shown that Intel did promise high-end workstations based on IPF. Now what about mass-market desktops and laptops?

So far as I know, there is no direct confirmation by Intel of IPF for the masses. But it's obtuse to throw out an idea just because it hasn't yet appeared in an Intel press release (though some on the board would disagree, I know). Based on at least the following facts, there doesn't seem to be much room to believe anything EXCEPT that Intel's long term goal was to migrate Itanium for the mass market:

1) Repeated denials of Yamhill since the issue has been raised
2) Statements admitting that 64bit desktops would be needed in the future (2010--a long way off, but still a stated intention of making them)
3) IPF having been named IA-64 (implying it is/was the ONLY 64 bit instruction set Intel had planned a la AMD64)

It seems obvious that Intel wanted to establish Itanium in the server/workstation world and bring it (or something like it, i.e. not x86) gradually into the mass market--at least as its "PLAN A". The advantages for Intel are obvious, and it meshes very well with the kinds of decision Barrett has made while CEO. Very interested to see what will happen when he leaves. And no doubt there is a PLAN B, C, D, etc.

Speculation, yes, but not groundless. And anyone who plays individual stocks is by definition a speculator ;)