Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 21st May 2003 15:39 UTC
Permalink for comment
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 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



However, it would be even nicer if it didn't cost an arm and a leg. Whether Intel like it or not, they cannot keep this "two archictecture" product line up for ever, one day they will need to decide whether to continue with x86 or go with the Itanium.
The Itanium on paper lines up to be a very good chip, however, pricing them at $4,000 to $5,000 per CPU when you closet competitors are still cheaper and performing better one wonders whether Intel has got the message.
If it were me, however, I would never had developed the Itanium and instead works to create a hybrid Alpha/PA-RISC combination that would take the positives from both architectures, then atleast we would end up with a architecture famila to most programmers rather that the situation we have now with operating systems and compilers still not mature enough.