Re: AMD planning 45nm 12-Core 'Istanbul' Processor ?

In article <KFzRj.12788$Rk6.2453@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
w.newell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:18:24 -0400, krw wrote:
> 
> > In article <buotzhme1jv.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > miles.bader@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
> >> "nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <mygarbage2000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >> >>What could be more boring than the x86 domination we have now?
> >> >>Without AMD, there would be no such monoculture.
> >> >
> >> > Did you mean "without Intel"?
> >> 
> >> I suppose if AMD hadn't been around, there would have been a greater
> >> chance of Intel getting their butts whipped by some other
architecture,
> >> instead of by AMD.
> > 
> > What architecture?  You grossly underestimate the x86 inertia.
> > 
> >> Of course AMD _did_ come up with "x86-64", which is an improvement
over
> >> the x86 (obviously even Intel thinks so).
> > 
> > Intel did too, but had no interest in pu****ng it forward to product.
> 
> Funny, that's not how I recall it. Intel dropped their x86-64 bit plans 
> after trying to push it onto Microsoft, and Microsoft telling them to 
> shove off. I think this link will get more to the truth.

Only after it was clear that AMD64 was going to happen whatever 
Intel did, did Intel try to get in front of the train (to derail 
it).  M$ didn't see that in their interest either.  
 
> http://www.gridtoday.com/03/0929/102028.html



-- 
Keith