Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Apr 2010 18:29 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Windows Ah, Intel's IA-64 architecture. More commonly known as Itanium, it can probably be seen as a market failure by now. Intel consistently failed to deliver promised updates, and clock speeds have lagged behind. Regular x86-64 processors have already overtaken Itanium, and now Microsoft has announced that Windows Server 2008 R2 is the last version of Windows to support the architecture.
Thread beginning with comment 417182
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Sad
by lucas_maximus on Mon 5th Apr 2010 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sad"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

The x86 baggage makes hell of a lot of difference per MHZ ... a SGI fuel machine with a 900MHZ MIPS Processor (M16000 CPU?) had similar floating point calculation speed to a 3.4 GHZ Pentium 4.

A Chip that had almost 4x the amount of MHZ was being equalled by something that was sub GHZ.

It does make a difference.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: Sad
by nt_jerkface on Tue 6th Apr 2010 00:41 in reply to "RE[6]: Sad"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

No one disputes that it makes a difference but that doesn't mean it always makes sense to use ARM from a performance/price perspective, especially when Intel and AMD are constantly improving the performance/watts of their x64 cpus.

Look I find Itanium interesting and I'm disappointed to see it in decline but I also know that there is rarely a good business case for it. Red Hat dropped Itanium support last year which shows that even Linux shops aren't interested in it. It's rare for a business to even need more than a couple Xeons so a 20% drop in power in those cases would be pocket change.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Sad
by smitty on Tue 6th Apr 2010 02:08 in reply to "RE[6]: Sad"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

The x86 baggage makes hell of a lot of difference per MHZ ... a SGI fuel machine with a 900MHZ MIPS Processor (M16000 CPU?) had similar floating point calculation speed to a 3.4 GHZ Pentium 4.

A Chip that had almost 4x the amount of MHZ was being equalled by something that was sub GHZ.

It does make a difference.


No it doesn't. Please stop spouting off about things you clearly don't understand.

A processor's IPC is all about tradeoffs, and Intel decided to go with a design that focused on high clockspeed with low IPC, while other chips have gone the other way. This has nothing to do with the instruction set, it's a valid tradeoff that you can choose to go either way on. PowerPC chips have gotten really high speed as well, and they aren't x86.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Sad
by tylerdurden on Tue 6th Apr 2010 03:19 in reply to "RE[6]: Sad"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

First off, those 900 MIPS chips were rarer than hen teeth, and had a cost many times that of the P4.

Now, calculate the cost/performance ratio of the MIPS part vs. the P4 and weep.

Also the MIPS part needed some insane caches in order to be competitive in SPEC, that drove the cost even further.

Reply Parent Score: 2