>> Do you have some more of this "current buzz", possibly?

> Absolutely

So pleast list them, or at least some of them if they're too many.

> not sure if I should continue to encourage you.

You said you want me to admit I'm wrong. Not giving more than the one single link you gave so far (besides the one I gave you before) surely won't encourage me to do so.

> you aren't willing to admit the possibility that others have
> concurrently come to similar conclusions as you have.

I've told you several times that this is not true, and you know it (if not, re-read what I actually claimed and objected to). I even admitted that others have come to this conclusion *before* me and *I* was the one presenting the first evidence of that. So please, stop this lie.

> you've latched on to the narrow point you think you have about
> whether or not there is an active discussion of this on the Internet.
> I've already provided you with proof this is being discussed.

I never said it's not being discussed but merely objected to your claim that it's "the current buzz" about this announcement and claimed that "almost no one" has been discussing this. To support this point let me outline what we actually have, as far as I can see. A Google search for nvidia+denver+arm results in about 1.1 million reported hits here right now. Oppose to that the 2 (or 3 including MorphZone) occurrences of this discussion/conclusion on the web that I'm aware of right now. Sincerely, what other conclusions than that it's not the current buzz about this announcement and that there's *almost* no one discussing this can I possibly draw?

> I don't know why this upsets you

I'm upset because you ask me to admit being wrong about something which I think I'm not wrong about, as all evidence I have so far supports my point. The sad fact is that you claim to have more evidence but are not willing to give it to me so that I could see that it's really what "the current buzz" is about. And I'm also upset because you continue to lie about what I claimed (see above).

> this on involves no great insight.

To quote myself: That's correct but doesn't change the fact that I fail to see "the current buzz" about the prospect of "Denver" being 64-bit.

> ARM moving to 64bit has been discussed before. Nvidia announces
> an ARM design (with no details) aimmed at markets dominated by
> 64bit processor. What else are people to conclude?

Don't you see that this is exactly what I'm about? The conclusion is very much obvious, as you say yourself, but still there's (as far as I can see) almost no discussion about this compared to the impact the "Denver" announcement created generally. That's what I've been suprised about from the beginning. I think ARM Ltd. officially offering a 64-bit ISA would even be bigger news than just the "Denver" announcement.

> While Nvidia license existing cores or obtain a license to
> design its own? Obviously the later

As you can read in my response to minator this has been established from the get-go. I don't know why you bring this up now in your response to me.

> since they infer in their press release that Denver will be more powerful
> than the A15 (which they state they'll use in other products). If they want
> an ARM processor that outperforms the best current design how else are
> they going to get it? They have to design it (or pay someone else to design
> it which seem far less likely).

I don't think that rationale makes sense. Along with a new ISA version ARM Ltd. has always offered own corresponding cores to license. So if nVidia can license a still undisclosed ARM ISA version then I think they could as well instead license the associated (and as well still undisclosed) core from ARM Ltd.
The real rationale is that nVidia explicitly say in their press release that they obtained an ARM architectural license and are going to design their own ARM core for "Denver", rather than license a ready-made core from ARM Ltd. That's as clear as such statement can get.

> The speculation that ARM will be used as a basis for a design that
> interprets X86 code (similar to Transmeta)? No, I can't see that.

Thanks for addressing this speculation. I'm with you on that one. It's hard to see that such a solution could make sense performance-wise. Even the author of the article circulating that speculation agrees with us on that.

> this is the first time you've actually managed to offend me.

Offending you wasn't my intention. But still, I can't admit that I'm wrong when I sincerely believe I'm not. I hope you understand this stance of mine.
In a balancing way I can say that I too feel offended by your attempt to outright lie about what I claimed.

> you're [...] unwilling to admit when you're wrong.

That's not true. If you want I can give you a dozen links from MorphZone alone where I admitted being wrong. But yes, it required not just capitalized words but real evidence to convince me. I don't think that's too much to ask.

> I'll continue posting these examples if you want

Yes, please do so. It's very much appreciated. I think a total of 11 links (i.e. one 100,000th of the amount of current Google hits) would suffice to convince me of the prospect of "Denver" being 64-bit being "the current buzz" about this announcement. That's a more than a fair assessment for "the current buzz", I believe.