Post #5,482
8/16/01 5:46:09 PM
|
'Bout what I've been hearing.
Itanium blows goats.
It actually isn't the software's fault - it is just a sucky processor. Supposedly the next gen ia64 processor will be where they get it right, if the market forgives them.
"What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The lesson is simple: you have recieved the information, now act on it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output."
|
Post #5,487
8/16/01 7:00:45 PM
|
You're being too kind
I'm doing software work on the damn things and boy do they suck! Compilation of programs that take 20 and 35 minutes on my P3 700 take about 50 minutes and an hour and a half respectively on a 1 processor Itanic! Only with a 4 processor 733MHz model will an Itanic be able to perform a linux kernel compile as fast as my little P3.
And everything they say about the heat they produce is all too true. In an otherwise cool lab, I start sweating after a while when I'm working between two of the ugly beasts.
McKinley better be good because Merced is a total joke. I'm hoping something will raise out of the embedded world to challenge Intel. The power consumption for Itanics is just looney. It's certainly no poster child for efficiency.
Dave "LordBeatnik"
|
Post #5,513
8/16/01 10:19:49 PM
|
130 Watts at 800 MHz. It's a nice heater...
[link|http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800099676_499481,1034362.HTM|With Merced in hand, OEMs await follow-on] in EETimes Asia.
I'm waiting for the PocketPC version. >:-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #5,763
8/18/01 2:47:19 PM
|
We make many jokes about its spaceheater ability
We've been joking about managers turning down the heat when winter gets here so save money. This of course would cause all the developers to fight to get itanics into their offices to use as space heaters. =8^)
The frightening thing it thinking about the heat generation a McKinley must have. With 50%+ higher clock rate and 25%+ more die area in the same .18 micron process the chip must be ungodly hot. I've long joked with a college friend that soon computers will start coming with Mr Coffees built in to make use of all that heat. It appears that soon Itanic processor systems will dump enough heat for powering small ovens. Doesn't everyone need an oven that also cruches seti@home? =8^P
Dave "LordBeatnik"
|
Post #5,823
8/19/01 10:03:52 AM
|
Itanium *has* competition
AMD's Sledgehammer for one. Personally I am betting that when games hit the wall with 32-bit addressing, AMD will be what they move to. And with the listed performance numbers, I would wonder if TransMeta can emulate Itanium faster than Itanium runs...
And if the performance problems are bad enough that people are willing to throw away x86 compatibility, don't forget that there are several 64-bit chips out there which could potentially move from their current roles in servers to general desktop use.
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #5,894
8/19/01 8:54:13 PM
|
Certes.
I'd like to see how HP's PA-RISC chip fares in a fair comparison. It always surprised me that the CPUs in their T520 ran at only 140MHz.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #6,173
8/21/01 8:12:45 PM
|
perhaps,perhaps,perhaps
The way I see it, the current 64 bit chip makers are too used to fat margins to ever make a volume play. Perhaps one will prove me wrong but right now most appear to be too good a rolling over and playing dead with the approach of the itanic. Thus, I see two paths to nothingness for the itanium.
1) x86-64. The least "painful" path. Everyone gets a "free" backwards compatible upgrade to 64bit. The big downside: it's still x86, just with still more complexity tacked on.
2) embedded assension. Just as intel is using dominance in the desktop to lay seige to high end servers, I can see Intel getting so attached to fat margins that it falls victim to the same play from the embedded world. The risc embedded processors are designed to be everything itanium isn't: simple and efficient.
Perhaps I'm dreaming too much, but I hope for something more power efficient than the itanium ( and to a lesser extent x86 ) to emerge. With the way itanium is going, air cooling soon won't be enough. The costs and hassles of a water cooled computer are not something I look forward to.
Dave "LordBeatnik"
|
Post #6,201
8/21/01 11:13:04 PM
|
X86-64 for masses, 64-bit RISC & Itanic/Alpha for servers
Intel loves its margin on server chips, too. Check out Itanic prices, and Xeon prices versus desktop P3/P4 prices.
AMD seems a lot more interested in the volume market. I think the desktop market will most likely go x86-64; for one, the Itanic will simply cost too much (die size, heat, and p/s issues).
I don't think the current RISC server chips (SPARC, PowerPC/RS6000) will come down much in price -- or will have problems staying ahead of Itanic at least until Intel merges in Alpha technology.
And, I don't think you're going to see embedded 64-bit chips (e.g. MIPS) have an impact in the desktop market -- unless Linux really takes off in the desktop. Windows ain't going to run on them.
Basically, the PC business is pretty boring now and the excitement is in other areas. I'm more interested in the lastest DSP's than the latest Athlons.
Tony
|
Post #5,534
8/16/01 10:58:13 PM
|
No, it'll suck until 2005 or so....that's when Intel will
get the Alpha technology melded in.
I had written off Itanic until the Alpha deal. Now I give them a chance.
From what I've read, Intel made some pretty bad choices when the designed the Itanic architecture. And, the benchmarks reflect this. I think by the time McKinley hits, it'll still be behind Sun and IBM.
Intel doesn't have a good track record trying to design revolutionary architectures from the ground up -- anyone remember the iAPX-432?
Tony
|
