The Last Nail in Itanium's coffin?

wallie_x · January 30th, 2004, 05:49 PM

This latest move by Intel almost assures the ITANIC's demise.
HERE!

sm8000 · January 31st, 2004, 11:29 AM

The market demand for x86 compatibility nearly renders IA-64 pointless anyway, since it is reduced to a very specialized segment. I have to wonder why Intel went with it at all.

Xtreeme · January 31st, 2004, 04:13 PM

Servers is why. Only they NEEDED it and only they could afford it. LOL> Intel liked that game. Athlon 64 made it "game over" for Intel. They gotta offer TRUE speed and 64/32bit compat (not software emulated and slow like now). Or show over. 64 bit with full 32bit compatability is here and is being FULLY embraced. More so then SSE3 could even hope. Intel goes the way the $ blows. So they "will" change. But how far behind are they? Will they be putting their foot in their mouth meanwhile. Seems so, thats the point.

Look at stocks right now. Intel Down like 20 points last I seen. AMD is UP 18 points. HUGE sales boosts the very first quarter after 64bit chip debuted. Intel aint dumb. They see the trend shift and their over priced under performing cpu needs to go and somthing better needs to step up. Thats the game plan I sure.

Darthgary · February 1st, 2004, 12:24 AM

Is this going to be another Intel vs. AMD thread?

nochay · February 1st, 2004, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xtreeme

Look at stocks right now. Intel Down like 20 points last I seen. AMD is UP 18 points.

All i will say is that stock numbers can be fudged. Watch a copy of Wall Street for further details.

Dane

Darthgary · February 1st, 2004, 01:10 AM

Who cares about sales, Intel has enough $ to do whatever they want. Especially considering how much of an OEM base they have.

wallie_x · February 1st, 2004, 03:22 AM

Yes Intel still is in a position to do 'what ever it wants.' However, that position is now a little narrower.

What I wanted to emphasize, was that Intel hoped Itanium would be its shining star for the 64 bit world. From what I can see it is a beautiful piece of engineering. What Intel forgot was practicality: "Keep it simple stupid" as the old adage goes.
Quantum leaps in technologies are rarely accepted outright as they destroy the past, with its dependencies on the old architecture too quickly. Look at the initial trouble AMD had with the Athlon 64. There were few available mobo's to support it, and this was just an expansion of existing architecture, not a whole revamping of it.
I believe Intel is to be commended for its effort, but also chided for its arrogance: for thinking it alone could dictate the future of 64 bit architecture.

Xtreeme · February 1st, 2004, 04:15 PM

The problem I see with it is no REAL 32bit speed. In 32bit mode you might aswell be on a P2 400mhz system. Its unreal how slow it is in reg apps and os's. So its ALL 64bit (server market) or nothing. THat is what the article was about too. They gotta offer both or die a horrible death(itanium) and release a new cpu that does. Which means large vendors ARENT gonna by a soon to be obsolete chip with that high of a price tag. Its no easy way out for intel this time. EIther they fess up to a HUGE mistake. Or they just watch Itanium sales drop imensly.

(no intel vs. amd thread) Its been all about Intel Itanium so far. LOL.