Slashdot Mirror


What's Next in CPU Land after Itanium?

"I work for a major research organization. Of late a lot of the normal big computer companies have been visiting and preaching the gospel of Itanium. My question to them, and to the assembled masses here at Slashdot is what happens next when Itanium is real? My world view is that Itanium based systems will become commodity products very quickly after good silicon is available in reasonable volume. At that point, why should one spend $8-10k for that hardware from the likes of HP, Compaq, Dell and others when one can build it for $2k (or even less)? In other words, has Intel finally done in most of their customers by obliterating all the other CPU choices (except IBM Power4 [& friends G4, et al] and AMD Hammer) and turned the remainder of the marketplace into raw commodity goods? Lest you defend the other CPUs... Sparc is dead, Sun doesn't have the money (more than US$1B we'll guess) to do another round. PA-RISC is done, as HP has given away the architecture group. MIPS lacks funding (and perhaps even the idea people at this point). Alpha is gone too (also because of the heavy investment problem no doubt). Most other CPUs don't have an installed base that makes any difference, especially in the high end computing world. So what's next? I don't like the single track future that Intel has just because it is a single track!"

13 of 541 comments (clear)

  1. What's after Itanium? That's easy by wrinkledshirt · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Anadium"

    That's probably only funny to chem majors.

    Okay, maybe not even chem majors.

    --

    --------
    Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...

  2. Re:Single track by grammar+nazi · · Score: 2, Funny

    The itanium already has not-an-instruction bits attached to each operation. Perhaps, they need not-a-thread bits for processes and not-a-bug bits for features.

    --

    Keeping /. free of grammatical errors for ~5 years.
  3. Next? by jgerman · · Score: 2, Funny

    In a word, quantum. Or maybe that's two words, actually it might only be a word when you're looking directly at it.

    --
    I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
  4. Logically, it should be Anadium by PD · · Score: 2, Funny

    Itanium is Titanium without the T, so Anadium is Vanadium without the V.

    I can't wait until they get to Hassium. They could name their chip Assium!

  5. According to Mr. Pearson... by bobetov · · Score: 2, Funny

    Quantum computing, 2007.

    Bet on it. ;)

    --
    Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
  6. The newest chip will be called... by RobL3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Unobtainium

    It's release will follow the distribution pattern established by Transmeta.

  7. Just... by JonWan · · Score: 2, Funny

    name it P-51 and use the 'nickname' Mustang.

  8. Re:SPARC's death *greatly exagerated* by schlach · · Score: 2, Funny
    BTW: I really wish that I could talk about the SPARC presentation. I liked it a whole lot better than the NDA I attended with HP talking about their Itanic future.

    Itanic. That's really funny.
    • Itanic rituals and sacrifices
    • Itan worshippers
    then I ran out of ideas and had to search for 'satanic' on google
    • Itanic Sysadmins
    • The First Itanic Church
    • The Itanic Verses
    • Itanic Hampster Dance
    ...

    (this post is obviously the set-up. now I just need someone to supply the punchline)
  9. Some more SPARC news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I heard SPARC chips are so fucking scared of the multi-GHz x86 clones that they are running their instructions out of order! Some of the Sparc instructions think they can even hide in a delay slot (under a jump) so the x86 clones won't find them and kick their sorry out-of-date asses!

  10. Re:When will we finally have CLOCKLESS CPUs? by sn0wcrsh · · Score: 2, Funny

    Have you ever tried to do large scale clockless design?

    Imagine a ballet without music.... Very hard to
    get things right.

  11. Re:compilers by RollingThunder · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can code what I can because I stand on the compilers of giants?

  12. Re: Wrong math, was Re:compilers by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 3, Funny

    so let me get this straight, you're asserting that the SPEED OF LIGHT is 30cm per second?? has the whole world gone crazy here?

    --
    That was classic intercourse!
  13. Re: Wrong math, was Re:compilers by Doctor+Bill · · Score: 2, Funny

    Doh!

    (open mount insert foot, chew, spit toes)

    That would be approx 30cm/ns, *not* second.

    What's 9 orders of magnitude between friends, eh?

    -b