Replies to post #2907 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[wbmw]

Spokeshave, Re: the fact remains that Intel, as recently as this summer, intended to have a 90nm product in 1H03.

Intel never said this. Do you have a link? Maybe you are confusing having a 90nm product with having 90nm production. Assuming Intel has already taped out Prescott (and they should have, by now), then they are producing silicon on 90nm as we speak.

wbmw

[Elmer Phud]

Spokeshave -

If the only thing you intend to contribute to the discussion is a critique of my semantics, please let me know, and I will quit responding. Regardless of whether I stated "90nm" or "Prescott" the fact remains that Intel, as recently as this summer, intended to have a 90nm product in 1H03. Now, no 90nm product appears on the official Intel roadmap at all for 1H03.

I am not simply critiquing your semantics, you are posting one thing then claiming you said another. You claimed 90nm was delayed to end of year and I see no evidence to support that claim. Furthermore, I see no evidence that Prescott has been delayed, other than a rumor posted on a tabloid. Now you are apparently saying that Intel originally intended to have a 90nm product in 1H03 but no longer shows that on their roadmap, this means a process delay. I am unaware of any such claim by Intel to have a 90nm product in 1H03, nor do I see the lack of a placeholder on the public Roadmap as proof that Intel will have no 90nm product until the end of the year as you claimed.

What it gets down to is this: You saw a rumor on the Inquirer saying that Prescott was delayed until end of '03. That rumor made the assumption that it must be because the 90nm process was delayed. You bought it without question. My point is that a rumor on the Inquirer doesn't mean it's true. That should be obvious to you by now.

EP