The Intel "Itanium" ?

[insdav3]

My hardware 'professor' at school says that intel is coming out with a new line of processors called the 'Itanium' availible to big corps...etc. What exactly is it.... ? Have you heard anything about it...and how will it compare to the current AMD's or does AMD have something up their sleeve also?

 

[Tanked]

The Itanium has been around for a while now, but it hasn't gotten much acceptance (all current x86 code has to be rewritten for it, or it runs incredibly slow). It's a 64-bit chip, compared to the 32-bit Athlon and 32-bit Pentium 4. Intel is releasing a better version sometime in the near future.
AMD is going a different route, by just extending the current architecture, so their new 64-bit processors (The "Hammer" line) will run old and new programs equally well.

 

[Gunbuster]

looks like you have the classic buzword prof.
They know very little when it comes to cutting edge tech. but they will tell you all about it anyway

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

And just to make things interesting, Intel is supposedly developing an X86-64 processor code named Yamhill that will take a page from the Hammer. I've heard conflicting comments about whether or not Intel would have to license X86-64 from AMD. (Inquirer says no, Anandtech says yes) Either way, we won't be seeing a fully fledge 64-bit only chip like Itanium on the desktop for a few more years yet.

edit: Damn FT3 and its extra http:// crap!

 

[cleverhandle]

fixed linky

 

[AGodspeed]

Intel's Itanium is natively a 64-bit chip that can run 32-bit code through emulation. Intel will not release this processor to the desktop, laptop, or regular consumer market in general at any point in time. Itantium (and it's brothers McKinely and the rest) are meant for servers and for corporations and other types of businesses that can afford $15,000-20,000 machines.

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

Intel's Itanium is natively a 64-bit chip that can run 32-bit code through emulation. Intel will not release this processor to the desktop, laptop, or regular consumer market in general at any point in time. Itantium (and it's brothers McKinely and the rest) are meant for servers and for corporations and other types of businesses that can afford $15,000-20,000 machines.

Agreed. The P4 is expected to scale well, and with Jackson technology it should stay competitive for a while yet. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Intel introduces a hybrid like the Hammer, it just makes too much damn sense to not do it.

 

[Kilrsat]

<< looks like you have the classic buzword prof. >>



Kinda like how my professor was telling our lecture about this new idea called a "branch prediction 'part'" that's first being included on the Itaniums?

But she does have an excuse, programming is her area, not hardware.

 

[Soccerman]

well the Itanium goes about processing things differently than other CPUs, and one of the things was how it predicts the branches.. it doesn't

I think it does all branches at the same time and throws out the useless ones that end up being the wrong branch... or something like that.

I recommend taking a look at this thread about Intels Hyperthreading which has This Link in it..

it will tell you a little about the Itanium at the end, but more importantly about SMT...

 

[AGodspeed]

<<

<< looks like you have the classic buzword prof. >>



Kinda like how my professor was telling our lecture about this new idea called a "branch prediction 'part'" that's first being included on the Itaniums?

But she does have an excuse, programming is her area, not hardware. >>



LOL.

 

[MasterHoss]

insdav3, time to bust your professor!! Get on him for that one.

 

[insdav3]

lol i'll try... i've already bursted his bubble a couple other times....

 

[Sohcan]

<< well the Itanium goes about processing things differently than other CPUs, and one of the things was how it predicts the branches.. it doesn't

I think it does all branches at the same time and throws out the useless ones that end up being the wrong branch... or something like that. >>

I don't mean to be picky (), but that's not quite true....full predication is only recommended on Itanium for if-then blocks. For inner loops, predication's overhead on the execution resources is potentially too great, and loop unrolling/software pipelining using traditional static or dynamic branch prediction is recommended.

There's some good info (though a bit technical) in chapter 10 of this document.

 

[PH0ENIX]

NB:
I think we'd all be tapping away on Amigas if Branch Prediction was 'new' technology

 

[imgod2u]

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with 64-bit. There are currently no x86-64 applications (not even Windows, Windows is written for 64-bit processors like the Itanium, Ultraspark and Power4). So basically, the Hammer will be kinda limited to its 32-bit performance. The P4 so far can still compete in that part. I doubt developers will code for a processor if it means they'll be incompatible with older Athlon and P4 processors for a while (hence code for 64-bit). So why bother with 64-bit in the desktop market? As for the server market, currently, developers in the server market are use to writing for architectures such as the Ultraspark and Power4, they're not x86 developers so hoping that they'll change to x86, an older and by far more stressful architecture, seems pretty far fetched. So what market does that Hammer's 64-bit capability possibly hope to capture? The Desktop market won't be moving to it anytime soon because there's always the consideration of older processors. The server market probably won't go for x86 seeings hows they're use to Ultraspark and others. If you ask me, the x86-64 part of the Hammer won't be used for a while.

 

[IceStorm]

Intel's Itanium Processor site.

Itanium is intended for Sun/Power4/PA-RISC/Alpha territory. It has a decent industry backing. While the first generation Itanium processors are primarily intended for developers, the second generation is supposed to be a much more capable device.

 

[dullard]

<< Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with 64-bit. >>



I've been saying the same thing for quite a while. Intel's first 64-bit attempt flopped. I think AMD's first 64-bit processor will initially flop as well. A leaked benchmark (no one knows if it is reliable) shows the Clawhammer will perform about the same as a 3.0 GHz P4. Intel plans to release a 3.0 GHz P4 at about the same time as the Clawhammer is released (give or take a few months). Thus there will be no reason to take a Clawhammer over a P4, until there are 64 bit versions of Windows and 64 bit applications available for the home user.

 

[Bovinicus]

<< Thus there will be no reason to take a Clawhammer over a P4, until there are 64 bit versions of Windows and 64 bit applications available for the home user. >>

If the price is lower, that is another reason. Also, these performance speculations mean nothing. We will just have to wait and see the Clawhammer for ourselves before we can say which platform is more desirable, if one is more desirable to most than the other.

 

[SniperWulf]

The Itanic flopped because it was proprietary, doesn't fun existing apps vey well and is TOO friggin expensive. This will be quite the opposite with the Hammer line. The standard is open (although you may or may not have to license it from AMD), its supposed to run existing apps natively and since AMD is gonna push this into the desktop sector, you know it won't be too expensive. I mean come on, it has to be pretty good if intel is rumored to be creating thier onw x86-64 clone

 

[dullard]

<< The Itanic flopped because it was proprietary, doesn't fun existing apps vey well and is TOO friggin expensive. >>


The Itanium was meant for users like me. I am quite accustomed to spending $10,000-$30,000 on a single computer. I know people who woudn't think twice to buy a $100,000 computer if they had a need and it provided a performance boost. Thus it makes no difference to the Itanium customers that it costs about $3000 for one processor.


<< you know it won't be too expensive. >>


How do we know that? AMDs last chip released costs $339 in 1000 units. AMD has had losses for the last two quarters. Thus AMD needs to get their average selling price even higher. I see no reason to expect the Clawhammer to be initially released at under $500.

 

[AGodspeed]

<<

<< Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with 64-bit. >>



I've been saying the same thing for quite a while. Intel's first 64-bit attempt flopped. I think AMD's first 64-bit processor will initially flop as well. A leaked benchmark (no one knows if it is reliable) shows the Clawhammer will perform about the same as a 3.0 GHz P4. Intel plans to release a 3.0 GHz P4 at about the same time as the Clawhammer is released (give or take a few months). Thus there will be no reason to take a Clawhammer over a P4, until there are 64 bit versions of Windows and 64 bit applications available for the home user. >>



Actually, the ClawHammer 3400+ scored 1350 in SpecInt 2000 compared to the NW 3GHz's score of 1000. That's a 26% advantage for the ClawHammer, but there's no proof that this was based on actual benchmark test numbers.

Btw, so far several versions of Linux have already been ported over to x86-64, and all Linux OS's should be ported over within the next few months (according to x86-64.org). Who knows if MS is working on x86-64 (or has been for a while), we're really not going to know for sure until we get closer to ClawHammer's launch.

 

[Bovinicus]

<< Who knows if MS is working on x86-64 (or has been for a while), we're really not going to know for sure until we get closer to ClawHammer's launch. >>

Actually, I'm pretty sure MS already has early builds of a 64-bit OS. I remember seeing a screen shot a long time ago of an MS operating system that said it was 64-bit down in the bottom. I can't remember where I saw the shot, it was so long ago. I wish I had proof. I know proof is important. You'll just have to take my word for it though.

 

[AA0]

AMD has raised their prices alot. Their prices never used to be that high. Part of AMD loses are due to other changes they are making, or made, and they should show more of a profit from now on.

 

[dullard]

<< Their prices never used to be that high. >>



"AMD-K6/233 processor is priced at $289" - AMD July 1997
"AMD-K6/300 processor ... priced at $246 " - AMD April 1998
"The 750MHz AMD Athlon processor is priced at $799 in 1,000 unit quantities." - AMD November 1999
"The 1.1GHz, 1GHz, 950MHz, 900MHz, 850 MHz, and 800 MHz AMD Athlon? processors are priced at $853, $612, $460, $350, $282, and $215 respectively" - AMD August 2000
"The 1.4 GHz AMD Athlon processor ... is priced at $253 in 1,000-unit quantities" - AMD June 2001


Ok What do you mean by saying their prices never used to be that high? AMD prices seem to be all over the board. I found their top price was: $289, $246, $799, $853, $253 (picked randomly about a year apart).

If I remember right (I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment) AMD had great profits in 1999 and 2000 with processors selling around $800. AMD did not make much profit in 2001 with processors selling around $250. I think you will find 2002 with prices inbetween - $500 is my guess.

 

[Bovinicus]

I don't know where he got that information from either. However, I do think AMD will start to make some profit in the next year or so. They did do a good deal better than projected this past quarter.