> for the non geeks, a Cliff-notes version would be helpful.
Sounds like an economy version of the failing Intel Itanium
processor (low-level parallelism). Won't replace x86 PCs for
the same reason (requires a software port). Even Intel had
to adopt AMD's 64-bit extensions to x86/IA-32.
> So is does this mean a bad year for Intel, AMD, and MU?
Intel is already facing a bad year (two years, actually),
because they are so far behind AMD. This introduction may
further nick Intel if it displaces IA-32 chips in game
consoles. I see no effect on AMD.
And AMD64 chips, which ARE "consumer chips", can address
40TB of physical RAM, which is about 80x what PCs ship
with today.
thx.