Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Nov 2008 12:42 UTC
Permalink for comment 338633
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-07
I still think your point isn't valid. How is x86 a dead end? It's the same story. It's been said for years but x86 continues to grow in the personal computer market (Apple) and into embedded markets. I haven't seen an argument by anyone here that can make the case that x86 is a dead end. It's wishful thinking at this point and until a company can make a processor with the price and performance of x86 it's here to stay. Point me to one next gen processor that makes the cut and I might concede.