Replies to post #17357 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[sgolds]

KeithDust2000, about Glaskowsky's claims -

Glaskowsky said that it's become apparent to him that Intel has failed to prove the need for IA-64. He adds that it's unlikely that server customers will switch to the Itanium now either.

That totally ignores HP's position in the server market. HP will certainly lose customers because of their Itanium switch, IMO, but many will switch. Add up their PA-RISC and MIPs markets and you have the potential Itanium market.

and you wrote

Itanium is not the future of the server market, X86 is.

What about Power?

Me: I think the server market is more complex than these comments indicate. It isn't at all like the desktop where one architecture predominates because you need a common architecture for an increasingly job-mobile, user-oriented workforce. The server market aims different needs at well educated technical personnel who have their personal preferences and biases. That IS worker gets paid to spend 10+ hours every day really understanding the particulars of his company's server deployment, vs. the end user who has to get a job done and would do it with telepathy if he just knew how. (Meaning that it has to be a automatic for him as possible.)

[chipguy]

MICROPROCESSOR REPORT guru Peter Glaskowsky says in the latest edition of the journal that Intel has failed to prove the case for its IA-64 Itanium microprocessor.

It will be interesting to see the backpedalling when IPF
uptake rates in 2H03 come to light.

This reminds me of when MPR predicted that PowerPC would
open a big performance lead over x86 starting with the
604 and never look back.

[wbmw]

Keith, Re: MICROPROCESSOR REPORT guru Peter Glaskowsky says in the latest edition of the journal that Intel has failed to prove the case for its IA-64 Itanium microprocessor.

There was a discussion on RWT that Glaskowsky's comments might have been taken out of context. I wonder if there are any other RWT readers here who could post a link.

[blauboad]

Glaskowsky seems to think Intel has no AMD64 license:

As he points out, Intel will have a lot of trouble licensing AMD64 because the pill is too bitter for Chipzilla to swallow.


Not sure if this is just an assumption on his part. Sometimes these guys do know stuff...