If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Pentium vs. Itanium
* Rick Jones:
Benjamin Gawert wrote: It is dead, even HP (the biggest Itanium vendor) knows this.... We do? You should. At least our HP contacts already admit that even inside HP it seems to be clear that Itanium figures aren't going to rise. The delay of Montecito is just a small part of this misere... Which is sad because technically the Itaniums are great, and we're extremely satisfied with it. But for some time now it lacks a severe performance increase while everything else around it gets faster and faster. Montecito is just too little too late... Benjamin |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Pentium vs. Itanium
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
... ***** charles wrote: It is too bad about the Itanium. It has "some" good engineering in it and it was supposed to last for the "next 20 years". If only Intel could fiture out how to make them CHEAP. The biggest problem is price that is why AMD64 and EM64T are both blowing it out of the water. Not really, Intel had the ability to sell it for very cheap, if it wanted to. Initially, it could've subsidized the price of the Itaniums, and then eventually it could've gotten the price down by simply migrating it to its latest miniaturization process node. However, neither option would've proved to be fruitful, as a cheap processor that nobody wants will only sell slightly better than an expensive processor that nobody wants. It's major problem was, and is, and will always be it's lack of software compatibility. If Itanium had the ability to efficiently run 32-bit x86 software like the Opteron did, then it would've been only a matter of biding time until 64-bit applications start coming in. Opteron simply ran existing 32-bit apps happily, while people slowly (and sometimes speedily) ported those apps to 64-bit. Yousuf Khan I wish I could remember where I read an article about the transitioning process from one arch to another since it was the writers' premise that the ability to run old software was NOT a hurdle for the adoption of the newer arch. The writer proposed 3 or 4 cases for his conclusion. I think Apple was one were it has gone through 3 major transitions: Apple II, Power and now Intel x86. IA-64 had the ability in the beginning to run x86 software but that ability was dropped because the demand was so low in its' customer base, people who actually bought one. Everyone (people, organizations, governments, etc...) is price sensative. If it was cheaper and faster, it would sell. It would be interesting to see what the percentages are for OS's: Linux Windows and HP-UX in the existing owner space. later, charles..... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Pentium vs. Itanium
"Benjamin Gawert" wrote in message
... * Rick Jones: Benjamin Gawert wrote: It is dead, even HP (the biggest Itanium vendor) knows this.... We do? You should. At least our HP contacts already admit that even inside HP it seems to be clear that Itanium figures aren't going to rise. The delay of Montecito is just a small part of this misere... Which is sad because technically the Itaniums are great, and we're extremely satisfied with it. But for some time now it lacks a severe performance increase while everything else around it gets faster and faster. Montecito is just too little too late... Benjamin I have tried to buy one of them at several times during the last 2 or 3 years. First you have to "qualify" and HP sends you to an internal rep in HP. Finally you can not just go to a website and order one and have it shipped to you. So, the purchase process is a HUGE hurdle. Then the prices are way out of wack compared to comperable x86-64 clones either from amd or intel. I hear that it runs Linux just great. My proposal to HP/Intel/whoever is to drop the hurcles to purchase, drop the prices according to Yousuf and sell them through the Internet to anyone who has a credit card or will send a check. Another idea it to design and make a motherboard that is IA-64 based that uses an ATX and or BTX motherboard that can handle other clone parts to make an Itanium clone computer. Sell it on places like Pricewatch just like all the other motherboards. That along with a better marketing campaign would turn it around. later..... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Pentium vs. Itanium
* ***** charles:
I have tried to buy one of them at several times during the last 2 or 3 years. First you have to "qualify" and HP sends you to an internal rep in HP. Finally you can not just go to a website and order one and have it shipped to you. So, the purchase process is a HUGE hurdle. Then the prices are way out of wack compared to comperable x86-64 clones either from amd or intel. Not really. At least here in Germany buying Itanium is totally easy. Besides HP itself there are dozens of resellers like MCL that do Itanium. And the price really isn't an issue as a zx2000 is sub-1kEUR and a rx26x0 is sub-2kEUR - both with decent CPU, RAM, and HP RENEW with 3yrs onsite. I hear that it runs Linux just great. As it does with Windowsxp/Windows Server 2003 64bit Edition, and it runs HP-UX even better. Honestly, if you want Linux then x64 would the the better choice, simply because there are much more distributions for x64 than for IA64... My proposal to HP/Intel/whoever is to drop the hurcles to purchase, drop the prices according to Yousuf and sell them through the Internet to anyone who has a credit card or will send a check. Yeah, right. As if people would buy Itanium servers just by a click on a website ;-) Another idea it to design and make a motherboard that is IA-64 based that uses an ATX and or BTX motherboard that can handle other clone parts to make an Itanium clone computer. You mean something like that http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Itanium/ Sell it on places like Pricewatch just like all the other motherboards. That along with a better marketing campaign would turn it around. You mus be kidding, right? Besides the fact that Itaniums performance is stagnating for some time now while x64 gets faster and faster the fact that it doesn't run acceptable with the majority of 32bit software is just one of the little annoying things that would prevent average user from buying it. The fact that it's also difficult to program for Itanium is just a second one. With no standard software and insufficient compatibility, who in his right mind would buy a more expensive platform which is even slower than the much cheaper x64 which also supports all generic applications out there? Your suggestion has the same quality like the ones that from time to time suggest that SGI or Sun should bring out a low-end MIPS/SPARC workstation for the consumer market to gain marketshare. These ideas look good, at least as long as you ignore the real world and its economics out there... Benjamin |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Pentium vs. Itanium
* ***** charles:
I wish I could remember where I read an article about the transitioning process from one arch to another since it was the writers' premise that the ability to run old software was NOT a hurdle for the adoption of the newer arch. Well, this writer was wrong. The very bad 32bit performance when running x86 code definitely was a very bad thing for Itanium... The writer proposed 3 or 4 cases for his conclusion. I think Apple was one were it has gone through 3 major transitions: Apple II, Power and now Intel x86. Right, but Apple also always provided a very good application compatibility... IA-64 had the ability in the beginning to run x86 software but that ability was dropped because the demand was so low in its' customer base, people who actually bought one. It was reduced (not dropped since that isn't possible). But you miss the reason for that. Itanium has a very poor performance when running 32bit x86 code, and no-one wanted to spend thousands of dollars for a 64bit machine that runs his 32bit applications at P2-266 speed. Since the majority of desktop applications is 32bit Itanium had already lost from the beginning there. So with low 32bit performance Itanium simply was uninteresting for the desktop market, and because Itanium was uninteresting for the desktop market no ISV wanted to invest money to develop 64bit applications for IA64 and Windowsxp 64bit. So Windowsxp on Itanium was terminated since no-one bought it. With Windowsxp being terminated the primary remaining OSes for IA64 were HP-UX and Linux (IBM terminated AIX for IA64, Solaris for IA64 was killed even during the alpha stage). But Linux was much better on x86 and later on x64, so there remained HP-UX. But the traditional workstation market was already shrinking, and no ISV who offered his desktop software for PA-RISC wanted to take the risk and port it to IA64, so HP finally killed the PA-RISC workstation... In short, the 32bit execution layer lost importance since the audience that needed that feature already abandoned Itanium because of the slow 32bit performance. And in the market where Itanium is today (midrange to highend servers and supercomputers) the relevance of running x86 code is nil... Everyone (people, organizations, governments, etc...) is price sensative. If it was cheaper and faster, it would sell. Yeah, right. I know the government market quite well but there are other criterias for them than pricing. Besides that, Itanium has its place in the highend server market. But as x64 gets better the days Itanium can keep this niche are countable... It would be interesting to see what the percentages are for OS's: Linux Windows and HP-UX in the existing owner space. That depends on the system vendor. Most Itanium systems made by HP probably run HP-UX (and since HP is the biggest Itanium vendor it's very likely that most Itanium systems out there run HP-UX, too). Then there are HPs NonStop servers running NonStop-Unix but they are sold in very few numbers. Most of the few other vendors selling Itanium use some kind of Linux... Benjamin |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Pentium vs. Itanium
* Benjamin Gawert:
But the traditional workstation market was already shrinking, and no ISV who offered his desktop software for PA-RISC wanted to take the risk and port it to IA64, so HP finally killed the PA-RISC workstation... Sorry, of course HP killed their Itanium workstations... Benjamin |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Pentium vs. Itanium
Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* Benjamin Gawert: But the traditional workstation market was already shrinking, and no ISV who offered his desktop software for PA-RISC wanted to take the risk and port it to IA64, so HP finally killed the PA-RISC workstation... Sorry, of course HP killed their Itanium workstations... Microsoft Windows expects graphics, and OpenVMS I64 DECwindows (X Windows) works just fine with current Integrity server configurations, for instance, and readily available displays. HP-UX also has graphics capabilities. All these operate on Integrity servers with Itanium processors. FWIW, one of the low-end servers in the Integrity series (the rx2600) basically started out as the graphics workstation box (the zx6000), and the second generation of the box (the rx2620) is available in the server line. And yes, with graphics. The usual choices are an optional add-on graphics controller, or the graphics that are part of the Management Processor (MP). The MP is a component of various of the Integrity servers, and optional on a few other of the series. And DECwindows runs on the MP graphics just fine, for instance. Unfortunately, the term "workstation" is a whole lot like "real-time" -- it's ambiguous. Without some context around the particular requirements or the particular application, "workstation" is ambiguous at best and not meaningful at worst. If you need or want to use your "workstation" for status displays, typical X Windows operations, or as part of a software development interface, for instance, these "workstation" products are certainly available in the Integrity product line. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Pentium vs. Itanium
* Hoff Hoffman:
Microsoft Windows expects graphics, and OpenVMS I64 DECwindows (X Windows) works just fine with current Integrity server configurations, for instance, and readily available displays. HP-UX also has graphics capabilities. Of course these machines do have some gfx but that is not really comparable to what was available for the workstations... All these operate on Integrity servers with Itanium processors. Yeah, fine. And what 3D adapters are supported on any of the Itanium servers? Exactly, zero. FWIW, one of the low-end servers in the Integrity series (the rx2600) basically started out as the graphics workstation box (the zx6000), Nope. zx6000 and rx2600 are indeed _very_ similar but not identical (zx6000 has AGP, the rx2600 is PCI only)... and the second generation of the box (the rx2620) is available in the server line. And yes, with graphics. And yes, still 2D-only gfx, and yes, still no fast gfx adapter or AGP. So what? The usual choices are an optional add-on graphics controller, or the graphics that are part of the Management Processor (MP). The MP is a component of various of the Integrity servers, and optional on a few other of the series. And DECwindows runs on the MP graphics just fine, for instance. Ever tried to do something 3D? Of course not. Moving a few Windows from one corner to another is all what the server gfx adapters are for... Unfortunately, the term "workstation" is a whole lot like "real-time" -- it's ambiguous. Without some context around the particular requirements or the particular application, "workstation" is ambiguous at best and not meaningful at worst. If you need or want to use your "workstation" for status displays, typical X Windows operations, or as part of a software development interface, for instance, these "workstation" products are certainly available in the Integrity product line. Only that they still are servers without any workstation attribute - mainly a wide choice of gfx adapters, a fast gfx interface (i.e. AGP), and (probably most important) the lack of ISVs that offer their workstation software products for Itanium... Benjamin |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentium D Vs Pentium 4 HT | [email protected] | Intel | 0 | April 15th 06 11:31 AM |
PENTIUM II technical info needed - your historical tech help | andre1000 | General | 6 | December 23rd 04 08:02 PM |
Itanium sales hit $14bn (w/ -$13.4bn adjustment)! Uh, Opteron sales too | Yousuf Khan | AMD x86-64 Processors | 43 | September 7th 04 09:34 AM |
Itanium Experts - Building Itanium 1 systems (parts)? | Matt Simis | General | 1 | December 18th 03 07:02 PM |
AMD or Intel | J.Clarke | Storage (alternative) | 56 | December 11th 03 03:05 AM |