> We appear to be on the same page on this design

We both find it likely that "Denver" is supposed to be a 64-bit design, yes. You said you were of the opinion that this is what "the current buzz about this introduction" was about. I am not of this opinion. So that's where we're on different pages.

> I think I've still managed to offend you.

I don't feel offended. It's just that I still don't get your "buzz" statement and thus am trying to find out what it's all about.

> Only a few that have followed current trends have posted any conjecture

"Almost nobody" fits reality better I think.

> instead of a "buzz" maybe its more like a murmur.

According to my dictionary that's at least closer to what I think it is than "the current buzz" ;-)

> it is obvious how other ISAs have evolved (even the PPC)

Actually, PPC wasn't that late to the show. Timeline of going 64-bit *and* actually shipping corresponding silicon was as follows:

1991: MIPS
1992: Alpha*
1994: PowerPC
1995: SPARC
1996: PA-RISC
2000: z/Architecture*
2001: Itanium*
2002: SuperH
2003: x86

* never had a 32-bit predecessor/counterpart, i.e. has been 64-bit from the get-go

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&start=301 (last link therein)

> its not unlikely that Nvidia is developing their hardware along a similar line.

Yes, but nVidia don't specify ARM ISA. ARM Ltd. does. So if "Denver" really is supposed to be a 64-bit ARM core/chip then this requires ARM Ltd. to at least have plans for something like an 'ARM64' ISA. That's what I believe is highly likely.

> Why wouldn't it be obvious to the rest of us?

I didn't say it wouldn't. I just expressed that I fail to see any alleged "buzz" regarding that matter.