<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Intel's RISC processor an upgrade over Itanium predecessor ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-17T23:53:14-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I did read the link, you should too...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3246009]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The 9300 is not even in general release and you say users have problems with them, can you explain that?Also the linked article states that Intel moved from FBDIMM to DDR3. How is that to be considered a manufacturing problem?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3246009]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan.Finley]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:16:15 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Intel has made RISC processors...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245745]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[... and still might for imbedded purposes; but don't quote me on that part.http://www.intel.com/design/i960/i960_linecards.htmAs I understand it, people who've worked directly with the i960 line of processors tend to think they were the best to come from the minds of Intel... but I'm a Moto guy myself, having started designing with the 6809. I mean, can you really go wrong with a processor that has a SEX instruction? Laterz,&quot;Merch&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245745]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rmerchberger@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:26:18 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[OK, I thought that was odd.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245686]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Since Intel is always bashing RISC, and I have seen no mention of it in reference to this processor.They have made at least one in the past, though.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245686]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[seanferd]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:11:38 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Quantum mechanics.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245684]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Already long a requirement in creating chips. Not sure what Newtonian mechanics are all that useful in designing anything to do with microprocessors.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245684]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[seanferd]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:09:40 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Follow the link.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245683]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Or do a search, whatever. Intel had problems with the processor. So did users.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245683]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[seanferd]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:05:46 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Correct!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245662]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As &quot;nano technology&quot; evolves, there will come a point when the laws of classical Newtonian Physics fail, and Quantum Mechanics rears its head. What to do when your little particle decides to behave like a wave? hahaha However, I believe that the transistor as a high speed switching device will become obsolete before Moore's Law fails.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245662]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[marv13]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:26:19 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Correction necessary...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245255]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Sorry, I should have dug a little deeper to ascertain the chip architecture.  I will try to get a correction.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245255]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Andy J. Moon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:55:49 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[According to InformationWeek...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245252]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...the Itanium 9300 is a RISC based chip.http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/processors/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222700595I did a little digging and it appears you may be correct, Intel bills the 9300 as a replacement for &quot;proprietary RISC&quot; systems.  I will do a little more digging to see where IW got their information.Sorry for the mistaken information, I will try to get a correction.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245252]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Andy J. Moon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:54:51 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[What problem?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245242]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Is the &quot;problem&quot; you speak of the switch from FBDIMM to DDR3 memory architecture?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245242]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan.Finley]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:54:24 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not particularly excited about Power7...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245250]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...and haven't had kool-aid in years.  The problems I referred to are the ones that kept the new processor from shipping in 2008, as was originally expected (per the second to last link in my OP, which talked about this chip being delayed and was published in February of 2009).I don't know why you think I am so giddy about Power7, it got a mention in a single sentence in my article while the rest talked about different Intel offerings.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245250]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Andy J. Moon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:46:35 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Been sipping Big Blue's Cool-Aid eh?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245125]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'm glad your all excited about the Power 7 release but I think you going a little far. What are the problems you speak of regarding the 9300 series?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245125]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan.Finley]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:30:43 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Moore's law is still going strong...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245106]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[IBM just demoed a chip with 100Ghz gates (which should translate to processors capable of 10+ Ghz clock speeds), the story is here:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/05/ibm_graphene_transistor/Seems like Mr. Moore has not yet underestimated the ability of human ingenuity.Laterz!&quot;Merch&quot;[[ Edited for readability. ]]]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245106]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rmerchberger@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:55:09 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You are both wrong]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245088]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Itanium is EPIC. A hybrid between VLIW and RISC. More dynamic than VLIW but less than RISC.EPIC is the most static you can be without having to recompile everytime you change the CPU design.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245088]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[9naomi9@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:34:45 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Intel's new processor an upgrade over Itanium predecessor]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245065]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I thought Itanium was a VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word) processor designed to over come the RISC limitations]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3245065]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ian.obrien@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:20:26 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Intel's new processor an upgrade over Itanium predecessor]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3244963]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[CORE i7 rockshttp://theapplegoogle.com]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3244963]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ipads]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:59:52 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[What do you think about Moore's Law?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3244624]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I love that technology keeps changing and evolving, it fits my personality and even the description of my astrological sign (Gemini) says that I deal with change well.However, it just seems to me that at some point, we won't be able to keep putting more and more transistors onto a wafer of silicon.  This isn't my specific area of expertise, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but at some point the physical limitations of the silicon seem like they will render this particular &quot;Law&quot; obsolete.The fact that it took Intel so long to iron out the problems with this particular processor makes me think that we may be approaching the limits of this particular area of computing.  What do you think, am I making too many assumptions or is Moore's Law finally in danger of slowing down?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325940-3244624]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Andy J. Moon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:34:55 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

