Replies to post #26401 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[j3pflynn]

wbmw - the slide only says 2004, so that could well mean December. Of course you could still be right if it takes MS until then to get WinAMD64 out.
Paul

[sgolds]

wbmw, you may be right. We'll know more this morning, of course. That slide did tie CT to 2004, probably Nacona. That leaves a couple of questions:

1. When will Nacona actually launch?

2. Will Intel choose to enable 64-bits at first shipment, or do they want to do a little Beta first? We have not had reports from Beta sites about testing CT yet, I don't think Intel will want to release to the general public without the benefit of that feedback.

[dougSF30]

I'm not surprised yet. I think the 'Nocona' speculation is from tecChannel, and is probably wrong, unless 'Nocona' is redefined to a much later date. "End of 2004 / early 2005" was the mobo roadmap indication. And Intel has every reason to spin it as early as possible...

So, will they make Q4 2004? Or will it be Q1 2005?

This Q2 04 talk appears to be foolish at this point, and doesn't fit with everything else out of Intel's mouth.

Doug

[jhalada]

wbmw,

I have made the prediction that it will align with the launch of Windows 64.

Why is that? There is obviously no precedent since Itanium that launch 2 years before Windows version. 386 launched more than half a decade before there was an OS for it.

A 2 day prediction when the press was buzzing about the issue with 10s of articles on the subject?

At least I know that I'm closer than those who predicted 2005. Sorry, Doug. Surprise.

Yeah right. There were 2 possibilities, Tejas / Potomac or Prescott / Nocona.

Last time we were talking predictions on Yamhill, some 1 or 2 years ago, you refused to acknoledge it, and then you left crying and complaining.

Joe