Slashdot Mirror


IA64 vs. Other 64-bit CPUs?

moZer asks: "There are countless reviews and comparisons between Intel's P4 and AMD's Athlon, but so far I haven't seen any benchmarks of IA64 versus other 64-bit CPUs. Is there anyone out there who has experience from working with the IA64 that can say something about its strengths and weaknesses?"

4 of 33 comments (clear)

  1. Re:IA-64 isnt out yet. by Howie · · Score: 3, Informative

    Supposedly part of the reason they suck compared to similarly-clocked 32-bit CPUs is that the compiler-optimisations required for ia64 are radically different from those used for x86.

    Not to defend Intel, but there has been about 10-15 years to develop compiler technology for the 386...

    --
    "don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
  2. A wee bit 'o' Googling by CounterZer0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    and I found this:
    http://www.dl.ac.uk/TCSC/disco/Benchmarks/spec.h tm l
    Not very detailed, but a broad comparison of different systems...something to start ya off.

  3. SPEC2000 by mojo-raisin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes. There is a comparison of IA64 -vs- The Rest.

    You can check out the details at spec.org,
    but I've found Ace's Hardware Top 20 Review to be a more concise and readable version.

    You can see that IBM's POWER4 has a fp peak of 1169,
    while Intel's Itaniam has a fp peak of 701. In int performance, the Itanium is pretty dismal.

  4. Use Ace's Hardware's specmine tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Spec2000 int here and Spec2000 fp here.

    highlights for int base:
    790-POWER4 1.3Ghz
    677-AthlonXP 1.6Ghz
    648-Pentium4 2.0Ghz
    621-Alpha 21264C 1.0Ghz
    569-PA-RISC 8700 0.75Ghz
    537-UltraSPARC III 1.05Ghz
    461-PentiumIII 1.13Ghz
    410-MIPS 14000 0.5Ghz
    379-Itanium 0.8Ghz
    99-PowerPC 604e 0.25Ghz

    highlights for fp base:
    1169-POWER4 1.3Ghz
    960-Alpha 21264C 1.0Ghz
    827-UltraSPARCIII 1.05Ghz
    734-PentiumIV 2.0Ghz
    701-Itanium 0.8Ghz
    624-AthlonXP 1.6Ghz
    581-PA-RISC 8700 0.75Ghz
    463-MIPS 1400 0.5Ghz
    340-PentiumIII 1.0Ghz
    91-PowerPC 604e 0.25Ghz

    The Itanium gets wacked pretty badly in the int scores, but does respectably well in the fp code which is far easier to extract parallelism from although it is beat by the POWER4, UltraSPARC III, and Alpha 21264. Even HP's 8700 isn't far behind.

    Even in the Itanium's strongest field, floating point, its little 32bit cousin, the PentiumIV, smokes it.

    The reason you don't see many reviews is because its a pretty slow chip, especially compared against the POWER4. Actually the reason you don't see reviews is because gamers who own web sites write reviews for the large readership of gamers who care about the fastest video card and CPU for their games. The market for an expensive 64bit shootout is pretty small. But its easy to afford a new video card or CPU.

    Heck, Intel gives them out for free if the site words a 10% win for Intel as "wiping the floor" and a 10% win for AMD as a "narrow victory"...