Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Jan 2006 20:37 UTC, submitted by Dean Jason
Intel With the next Itanium chip, Intel has abandoned a feature it once banked on but that never proved successful. Circuitry to let Itanium run software for x86 chips, such as Pentium and Xeon chips, is not present in the forthcoming 'Montecito' processor, according to the 176-page reference manual (.pdf) for the chip published this week. Update: El Reg has more on this story.
Thread beginning with comment 88146
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why use Itanium?
by stare on Sat 21st Jan 2006 18:45 UTC
stare
Member since:
2005-07-06

Because its the fastest processor available. Look at the top500 list. And ia64 is very progressive and powerful architecture, problem is the lack of good compiler for it. But AFAIK Intel is working hard to improve the compiler, and they hunt and buy all professional compiler developer teams they can find around the world. In 2005 IA64 compiler got 30% performance rise.

Browser: Mozilla/4.1 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Symbian OS; Series 60;452) Opera 6.20 [en]

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why use Itanium?
by theGrump on Sat 21st Jan 2006 22:34 in reply to "Why use Itanium?"
theGrump Member since:
2005-11-11

>> Because its the fastest processor available. Look at the top500 list

to be blunt, no one cares. nor should they. in fact if someone is using the top500 list to form opinions on business hardware, they should be relieved of this duty.

no one is going to buy a cpu because it is used in esotertic high-end, one-of-a-kind clusters, because they know this is meaningless to their implementation.

with very few exceptions, business computing and high performance computing went their separate ways long ago. compatibility with current operations, vendor support, low maintainence, low power consumption, low heat dissipation, commoditization (can i buy these types of systems from someone else should dell or hp or ibm piss me off), are all far more important these days (among other reasons) than flat-out cpu performance, which is not to be confused with *system* performance (throughput, i/o, etc), which is also rarely dependent on cpu per se anymore.

Reply Parent Score: 1