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!"

Comments

compilers

[avandesande]

Itaniums will become commodities when people figure out how to write compilers for them. That will be in about 10 years.

Re:compilers

[shitfit77]

You seem to miss the point on this a little bit. Although there will be compilers available, there is an extreme difference between a compiler and a good compiler. A compiler works, a good compile is able to utilize an architecture to its fullest (or at least close).

Re:compilers

[jmv]

Not likely, it would take a couple of weeks max for the first compilers to appear.

Sure, but the problem is how long before there are good compilers? That's one of the main problems with architectures like Itanium.

Re:compilers

[jgerman]

First compilers are the MOST useful compilers since they are the ones that will be used to create the later ones.

Re:compilers

[bmajik]

You overestimate the brilliance of compiler writers.

LIW and VLIW were tried before. They flopped, because compilers were dumb then. Compilers stayed dumb until midway through the RISC era. Now RISC and CISC are the same, compilers are reasonably bright, and intel is trying its own hacky LIW thing. The compilers are smart enough for a generation 1 LIW design to work, but there may or may not be any indication that they'll be smart. And as each successive subarchitecture of IA64 happens, the compiler will need to change or the chip will need to handle previous generation instructions. Intel is not true LIW in this regard - you should be able to run unmodified IA64-1 bins on IA64-2 chips.

So, some brains are still in the IA-64 chip, meaning the compiler wont have to be _as_ smart, but they'll still need to be smart, and you'll still need a new compiler for each IA64 implementation to get max performance.

Re:compilers

[Zathrus]

Not likely, it would take a couple of weeks max for the first compilers to appear

You obviously know nothing about Itanium, EPIC, VLIW, or pretty much anything else on this topic.

The issue isn't whether or not there's a compiler available. The issue is how GOOD the compiler is. In the case of a Very Large Instruction Word (VLIW) CPU like the Itanium, the compiler is the bottleneck for system performance. Why? Because the premise of these CPUs is that while they have a low clockspeed (750-800 MHz for Itanium), they execute many instructions per cycle - 10 or more. So while "slower", they get more done per cycle, resulting in a faster overall execution. It's up to the compiler to properly structure the executable machine code to take maximum advantage of this layout and keep all execution units of the CPU busy at all times, as well as reduce disseparate memory accesses and so forth.

The intial compilers that are released with these machines do it, but not as well as they could. In fact, compiler writers are still trying to grasp the issues with pipelining on modern CPUs and their much lower number of execution units, and this is without utilizing special instructions that explicitly do non-conflicting operations at once. We're still years away from writing fully optimized compilers for contemporary CPUs. And while there's been a great deal of work done on VLIW already (prior to Itanium), there's even more yet to be done. A decade for a "good" compiler is probably optimistic.

You may be wondering, what's the point anyway? If VLIW is so damn hard, why bother? Just ramp up that clock speed and get more CPU power! Well, that's nice, but it doesn't work in reality. We're starting to bump up against physical limitations in CPU speeds. Electrons are not magical particles that travel instantaeously. They are limited to slightly under the speed of light, which means roughly 1 cm per nanosecond. This doesn't seem to be a big deal until you realize that a 2.0 GHz CPU means each clock cycle is 0.5 nanoseconds. So if you have to fetch an instruction or data from main memory, and that memory is a mere 5 cm away, under optimal conditions you've just sat around for 10 clock cycles waiting on that memory to be fetched. This is ignoring the fact that there's propogation delays, latch delays, and other things. So go ahead, pump that CPU up to 10 GHz and waste even more clock cycles waiting on data. That or redesign the entire thing, expect the compiler to do the work and properly feed you data and instructions such that you can do 10x as much in the same amount of time, and all with no wasted CPU instructions.

That's the theory at least.

Reality is that not only does the compiler have to properly organize the machine code, it also has to have some idea of what the code is doing to do so. Compile the code w/ profiling, run the code against a "realistic" data set, then recompile it again feeding it the profile data. Many compilers can do this now, but it's rarely done. Because it's hard to guess a "realistic" data set, it's hard to acquire the same, how you expect the code to be used and how it actually is used are rarely the same, and there's more development time involved in all of this. So most companies don't bother. And despite what I said above, 2.0 GHz still hasn't reached the point where the CPU is sitting on it's ass more than it's doing work. Until we start approaching that point there's little incentive to put in the R&D time necessary to switch to a new CPU archictecture.

And, of course, on top of all of the above is the issue that Joe Sixpack will invariably see 2 GHz as faster than 750 MHz no matter what. Have fun with that one.

Re:compilers

[RollingThunder]

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

Re:compilers

[maraist]

So basically you're saying that computers are magical radio-wave transcievers? Funny, I thought computers were based on capacitively switched [Bi]CMOS transistors. This means the "logical operation" travels at the speed of the capacitor charge / discharge times. After the ramp-up, ramp-down time (further delayed by theinnefficiencies of junctions), then the signal travels at the drift velocity of the electrons trapped within the conduction-band; significantly slower than a stream of free-flowing electrons, much less a single electron going full-tilt.

In fact, when electrons start going close to the speed of light within a silicon, there's typically an avalanching effect (utilized in zenor diodes). Channel break-down can easily occur under such situations (caused by relatively high voltages).

To my understanding, the single biggest speedup in the past several years was the introduction bipolar transistors into the CMOS frame-work. Bipolar are very fast (non-capacitively switched), have high current, high amplification, but are power-hogs and require difficult geometries to manufacture. My understanding of BiCMOS is that FET's are used everywhere, but when a FET needs to be charged quickly (or generally requires high current output), a bipolar device is attached on the output as an amplifier. You get the best of both worlds (with the possible exception of the geometry limitations).

Wiring obviously was an issue because new copper based CPUs can run cooler and faster.

I only have an undergraduate understanding of the processes, but the simple point is that there are paracitics all throughout the architecture, and we're discovering efficincies everyday which provide percentage increases in overall performance. Thus it's not the speed, but the sophistication of the design.

There's lots of work going into light-based computing, but I don't think this will ever win out because they're plagued with even bigger interconnect problems and thus paracitics.

-Michael

What's after Itanium? That's easy

[wrinkledshirt]

"Anadium"

That's probably only funny to chem majors.

Okay, maybe not even chem majors.

I don't think we need to worry just yet

[Indras]

Think for a minute how long we've been using 32-bit processors. If (and when) 64-bit becomes mainstream, I imagine it will be around for a LONG time, as it becomes standardized and slowly takes over a majority of the market. Also, we'll have the other contenders butting in with equivalent and cheaper options, like Cyrix (tried) and AMD (did).

Just because Intel will pave the way for mainstream 64-bit processors using the Itanium doesn't mean it will monopolize the market until it comes out with a 128-bit processor. No matter what, it will probably be years from now before we have to worry.

Re:I don't think we need to worry just yet

[SoftwareJanitor]

The only problem with AMD's 64 bit line is that it isn't going to be compatible with the Itanium. That is both good and bad. Good in that it is an alternative, bad in that it is going to cause a lot of confusion.

I think a lot of people are too overconfident that Itanium is going to be successful, let alone quickly. It is going to require a lot of changes to software in order to take advantage of it because it isn't just a 64 bit x86, it is a whole new architecture, one more closely related to HP PA-RISC than x86. It also may not do a very good job of running existing 32 bit code, which could slow down its acceptance, particularly in desktop systems. The last time Intel made a big push (with the i432) to create a whole new non-x86 processor family, it was less than successful. Although to be fair, the i432 was a radically different proposition and the Itanium with its more proven PA-RISC roots looks a lot more sound.

AMD's Hammer architecture, on the other hand, is more conservative, being a x86 family processor extended to 64 bit. It should require less modifications to existing software to take advantage of it, although an argument could be made that it won't have as much advantage to take having more legacy issues with the aging x86 architecture. It also may perform a lot better on existing 32 bit code than Itanium. And if AMD's track history holds true, it will probably be significantly less expensive than the Itanium.

A lot of whether it is Intel or AMD that paves the way for 64 bit mainstream CPUs will probably have to do with which of them is the first one that offers a price attractive product that runs existing 32 bit software well while being marketable as a 64 bit chip. Unfortunately for AMD, the marketable part is, as always going to be tough. While AMD has been hugely successful in "white box" sales where customers can choose their CPU, they've had a much more difficult time penetrating the big name PC markets, particularly in higher end systems. This despite the fact that in many cases an Athlon or Duron would offer a better performance than a PIII or P4 at a better price.

Itanium vs. Hammer vs. All Others.

[Talonius]

AMD's newest chip is supposedly fairly remarkable (don't have specifics, see Tom's Hardware's search engine). What about the Crusoe? VIA's purchase of (I believe) the M3? I wouldn't look at companies that are currently in the business only - I would tend to look at companies that might move into the business, either via investment, startup, or outright purchase.

I'm not too worried about Itaniums, and I don't see them becoming prevalent for quite a while. While the Pentium II, III, and IV moved through the marketplace fairly rapidly they all offered compatibility at some level. If I recall correctly 32 bit programs that are not rewritten for 64 bit run SLOWER on the Itanium than they do the equivalent Pentium line.

In essence consider this: it's like a brand new operating system attempting to break into the monopoly that Microsoft has. (Parallels drawn out of necessity.) While it may be better, faster, superior in every way it doesn't have 20+ years of legacy code behind it - and that will end up being what drags it down.

Only time will tell. Remember the Pentium Pros..

Talonius

Re:Itanium vs. Hammer vs. All Others.

[Skirwan]

If I recall correctly 32 bit programs that are not rewritten for 64 bit run SLOWER on the Itanium than they do the equivalent Pentium line.

When Apple transitioned from the M68K line to the PPC, they were in the same situation - 68K code would run faster on a 40Mhz 68040 than on a 40Mhz PPC 601. The reason consumers didn't mind was that the the PPC 601 started at 60Mhz (approximately the break-even point to the emulation layer), and (to the end user) didn't cost significantly more.

Until Intel gets the Itanium cost down to the point where they run 32-bit code at equivalent speed to a Pentium at the same cost, Itanium probably isn't ready for the consumer market.

--
Damn the Emperor!

Re:Itanium vs. Hammer vs. All Others.

[Locutus]

> Only time will tell. Remember the Pentium Pros

the ONLY reason the Pentium Pro didn't catch on was because Microsoft released a 16bit OS and told everyone it was a 32bit one ( Windows 95 ).

SCO Unix, OS/2, and to some degree Windows NT ran quite a bit faster on the 32bit optimized PPro when compared with the same clocked Pentium.

Because of Microsofts great PR, even Intel was caught off guard and scrambled out a hack called MMX to give the appearance of progress in the CPU market. While the MMX based Pentiums were getting press/air time, Intel was hacking at the Pentium Pro core to get it to run THE 16bit OS (Windows) faster. That was the Pentium II.

IBM did some speed tests of OS/2 on the PPro and in some cases they saw a 100% speed increase on the 32bit optimized PPro.

This reminds me of the 7degrees from Kevin Bacon reference. It seems that many failures in the computer industry are only about 3degrees from Microsoft. And never is the failure do to competition but more likely, marketing and market control. IMHO.

The PPro was a darn good CPU. It finally took 32bit-ness seriously though about 10 years after the 32bit i86386 was released. As much as I like the simplicity of RISC, Intel will never get the Titanicium off the ground and AMD/Hammer will force Intel to follow their lead with an extension to the i86 instruction set into 64bit land.
IMHO.

LoB

Re:Itanium vs. Hammer vs. All Others.

[boopus]

While 800/2200MHz is a large difference, you fail to mention something that everyone here should know by now, that clock speed does not equal performance.

Clock speed does not equal performance. This is a fact of life, especialy with 20 stage pipelines and the like. AMD and Apply have been trying to teach this to the world, and on the surface most geeks understand, but they don't beleive it in their hearts.

Now, I'm not saying that the PIV won't be faster than Itanium for a good while here, and I honestly have no idea if it will be or not. We just need to stop using Mhz as our comparisons unless we're comparing the same chip.

Re:Itanium vs. Hammer vs. All Others.

[homer_ca]

"the ONLY reason the Pentium Pro didn't catch on was because Microsoft released a 16bit OS and told everyone it"

I wouldn't say ONLY. There was also the slight problem of the double chip package (separate cache and cpu dies mounted on one substrate) being horrendously expensive to produce. Looks like Itanium will have thesame problem.

Recurring problem

[colmore]

This seems to be a recurring problem in a number of technology based industries. Once you get to a certain lever of high-tech, only the (very) big boys can even compete.

So here's the question: how do you keep competition alive when an initial investment costs in the billions of dollars. For any company less than Intel sized, a single bad product cycle spells complete doom. That's no kind of market to be in.

Also, wasn't this inevitable. There are a few Beowulf jokes being posted, but that's really what's going on. Increasingly high performance tasks (Google, render farms etc. etc. etc.) are using massive arrays of low-power CPUs. It costs a lot of money to develop big iron chips, and if people aren't buying them then there's no point in investing that much money.

What I'm worried about are the isolated markets that still require massively powerful, low processor number architectures. Not everything splits into nice Distributed.net packages.

Re:Recurring problem

[Waffle Iron]

Speaking of badass mainframe processors, I was an intern at IBM in the mid 80's. The top-of-the-line mainframes used a central processor comprised of about 100 custom ECL chips mounted on a 4-inch-square 100-layer ceramic substrate.

The whole thing was cased in a shiny metal module. Each chip had its own sping-loaded heat slug that transferred heat to the cooling liquid sent through the module's plumbing. (100 ECL chips == major kilowattage)

They told me each CPU cost about $50,000. On a factory tour, I saw an entire pallette of these sitting on the floor, kind of like gold at Fort Knox.

These things may not perform like today's chips, but they gave meaning to the term "Big Iron"

SPARC is dead?

[bconway]

That's news to me. I could swear a friend of mine just jumped in on the UltraSPARC 4 project.

Re:SPARC is dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I was just transferred to the UltraSPARC 4 project at Sun in Burlington, MA. I don't know of the official release date, though I've heard rumors of early 2003. I'm amazed at the quality of FUD in this "article" and that it actually made it to the front page of Slashdot.

SPARC's death *greatly exagerated*

[AtariDatacenter]

Having recently participated in an NDA from Sun regarding the SPARC processor (and even with the knowledge I had walking into the meeting), SPARC is not dead or dying. In fact, I'd say that Sun squarely recognizes it as a strength. Their competition (HP for example), however, is wishing they didn't knife their baby.

As far as money to go another round, remember, Sun doesn't fab CPUs. What Sun does is design them, and they turn it over to Texas Instruments for production. And TI has their own reasons to keep up-to-date with the latest production technologies, so Sun doesn't eat that cost.

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.

Re:SPARC's death *greatly exagerated*

[wysoft]

Sun doesn't have to worry about raw CPU power because their machines are not designed to write Word documents or play a game of Wolfenstein. Compare a Sun machine to almost any PC out there and it will smash the PC's memory and system bus bandwidth. For the kind of tasks that Sun machines usually accomplish, that is much more important when it comes to the throughput that people buy Sun machines for.

Hell, most PCs don't even have enough PCI bandwidth to fully saturate a gigabit ethernet connection unless you have a totally bare PCI bus or a system which provides each PCI slot with its own dedicated bus, as most Sun PCI systems do.

Let's not even compare the stability, scalability, and worksmanship of PC and Sun hardware. That would just be unfair to 99% of the "business" PC workstations and servers on the market.

Itanium

[crumbz]

Given the tremendous capital requirements in building a state of the art fab along with the incredible amount of enginnering man-hours required to leap to the next level, I think we are seeing a situation similar to the one for airliners: Airbus or Boeing. They are the only two that matter because the cost of entry into the airliner market is so prohibitive. This does not necessarily apply to Microsoft and it's OS monopoly as the Linux community has illustrated. Mindshare and marketshare are not always linked.

I have hopes for Intel producing the worlds best microprocessors as that would benefit s all. Simply advocating a move to Itanium for marketing reasons or to meet revenue targets does a disservice to the computer industry.

Then again, they are in business to make $$$....

The newest chip will be called...

[RobL3]

The Unobtainium

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

Itanium will be Hammered

[Brian Stretch]

The huge die size of the Itanium and its upcoming successor make the chip far more expensive than the Pentium series, so I would not expect Itanium machines for $2K. So far, the CPUs alone are several $thousand. I also haven't seen where its performence is that impressive. x86 code performence, since its emulated, is poor. Recompile or else. Intel has sold, what 500 Itanium CPUs?

The upcoming AMD Hammer series, OTOH, is supposed to be about 30% faster clock-to-clock than the current Athlon XP series (which is considerably faster clock-to-clock than the Intel P4) and start at 2GHz. Sun's recent announcement of Linux x86 platform support, with details to come midyear, suggests that they'll be moving to the Hammer (to ship Q4). Sun would certainly love to take a swipe at Intel, and Sun has made positive comments about AMD's x86-64 Hammer architecture.

Speculation: Intel gets Hammered in the second half of this year.

No, no, and no.

[hotsauce]

No, Itanium will not become commodity as soon as you foresee because compilers and software do not exist to make good use of it (some argue nothing can make good use of it [derogatory]).

No, Intel has not killed the competition. AMD is alive and well. The PowerPC family is on the verge of The Next Big Thing (G5). And the reports of Sparc's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

No, other vendors are not irrelevant. Hitachi makes killer chips for big iron, and looks set to increase that trend. If anything, the CPU market is looking less and less like a monopoly than before.

*cough* PoerPC *cough*

[S-prime]

Now that the G4 has finally gotten past the 1GHz mark, and Apple has a brand spanking new Unix based OS running on it(and if you don't like it you can run others), this opens a whole new choice for the researcher looking for a new platform.

Intel CPUs will be killed by Microsoft's CLR

[eyefish]

It is my opinion that once Microsoft makes its Common Language Runtime a forced deFacto standard, and once they manage to implement it on other CPU architectures, they'll essentially have a hardware-independent Windows platform. Once that happens Microsoft will have sole leverage on the PC business. That means that Intel will NOT be needed at all for running future versions of Windows-compatible programs. Who knows, maybe this could spell a revival on new and innnovative CPU architectures, since they all will now be able to run the CLR. Side note: We *could* do this today with Java, but sadly Sun doesn't have the leverage Microsoft's monopoly does on the PC business.

Re:*cough* PowerPC *cough*

[joe_n_bloe]

Also featuring stinking fast floating point.

Dead? I doubt it.

[BlackStar]

SPARC dead? I'm not sure where you come across that idea. Having listened to a few talks down at JavaOne and chatted briefly with Marc Tremblay (head chip dude down there, father of MAJC and one designer of SPARC) they've already got design down on the next two levels of SPARC as the IV is experimental, and the V is the next production level as I understand it. MAJC seems to be the experimental platform they are using for smaller implementations and alternative ideas to be tried, based on some of Tremblay's theories.

I may be off base on some of the details, but Sun has a unified approach from top to bottom, from tools to silicon for the systems they plan to deliver. I doubt it will just throw in the towel. Ultimately, Sun ships iron, and they lead the market in their segment.

I don't see the basis for your assertion, and where you pulled 1B out of for cost I also don't know.

Alpha is AMD now, as that's where a good chunk of the people went. MIPS is still kicking, with the 14000 so far, but I won't speak to the future of that chip line. There's a lot of chip heads on this site with much better info than I on many of the lines.

One decent, although dated summary is here

Please tell me there's more information you're basing this on than consumer workstation marketshare....

Re:Innovation in the CPU business

[GGardner]

Nice idea, but keep in mind that static compilers are extremely difficult to create for Itanium. Performance results I've seen show that while the theoretical maximum for IA-64 is pretty impressive, the actual results static compilers are generating are not so hot.

Now, try to write a dynamic, JIT compiler for Itanium, which is even hardware than a static compiler. I haven't seen any java or CLR performance numbers for IA-64, and suspect I know the reason why. :-)

More importantly...

[Kerne]

A fast CPU is nice, but how about upgrading the rest of the standard PC architecture and peripherals to the same level?

Weren't we all suppose to be using high-speed serial connections by now instead of a cocktail of SCSI (1/2/3, wide, fast, hold the mayo), IDE (ATA-33/66/100), parallel, 8 bit serial, USB, Firewire, PS/2, PCI, ISA (which is finally disappearing), etc. Heck, I'd be happy if the motherboard ran at even half to a third the speed of the cpu. :P

Using a 20 year old peripheral port on last weeks multi-gig cpu is like sucking a McDonalds shake through a coffee stirrer!

NVidia, the next player

[Animats]

My own guess for the desktop is that NVidia will put a CPU core, probably from AMD, in the next generation of their nForce part. That puts CPU, graphics, networking, sound, disk control, and the motherboard logic on a single chip. Their current nForce part already has all of that but the CPU.

If you look at the transistor counts, NVidia's graphic chips already are more complicated than most CPU parts. This is quite do-able.

Re:NVidia, the next player

[maraist]

if you look at the transistor counts, NVidia's graphic chips already are more complicated than most CPU parts. This is quite do-able.

There's more to [CG]PU complexity than transistor count. Look at the 512Mbit memory cells that run for only a couple dollars a chip.

The trick is inter-related logic complexity. To my understanding the existing GPUs have no issues with backward compatability (so much of the x86 overhead is avoided), the core itself is pipelined and modular, so the complexity is spread out across the whole chip (independent teams can work on their own components with little concern for sistern components, whereas every ounce of performance is being squeezed out of x86's which require complete coordination). Further, graphics acceleration is simply the application of graphical algorithms into silicon. While I'm not quite sure which algorithms there are, the possibilities are endless. Imagine a fast-fourier transform implemented as a SIMD floating point instruction. You create an array of floating point logic units, and interconnect them. The floating point unit is pretty much a common-off-the-shelf design, so the only real logic you apply is the interconnectivity.

I'm not saying that GPU's are easy to design, I'm just saying that hardware filters are designed this way all the time, and I would'nt be surprised if a large percentage of the nVida chips weren't stock logic modules.

-Michael

You are nuts if you think ...

[joe_n_bloe]

... that a runtime environment where "Hello World" will require, let's say, several GB of disk, a few hundred MB of RAM, continuous online updating (also requiring continuous hardware updating), and hundreds of old and newly-arriving security holes and exploits, is going to "take over the world."

Granted, it's going to be popular for a while. But isn't what's popular *always* sucky?

My 2c

[UTPinky]

I had a professor last semester that worked at Intel, and several things he told me, reminded me of somthing: It's still a busisness. In my opinion Intel will not make any huge move, until they KNOW that they will profit off of it. This means that they won't make any major move until the consumer market is there. For example, he was telling us that there have been times where they have come up with ideas that would in fact increase performance, HOWEVER due to their wonderful job at brainwashing the entire public into thinking that clockspeed is THE measure of performance, they scrapped the ideas because they noticed that they would cost too much to implement, and would result in no frequency increase. (Thanks Intel)

I also think that while AMD has shown that they can provide an honest competition in terms of performance, it is going to be stuck following Intel's every move, for the mere reason that Intel is "sleeping with" so many big OEMS (*cough* Dell *cough*), leaving it as the CPU for the hobbyist

Well, anyways, that's just my 2c...

64-bit isn't necessary - and Itanium may suck

[camusatan]

The implicit assumption that the author is making here is that 64-bit CPU's such as Itanium will be the 'next big thing'. I'm not sure - 64-bit CPU's really only are necessary for machines that need more than 4 GB of VM space - and with various x86 addressing extensions, some IA32 CPU's can address up to 16 GB (I think).

Now don't get me wrong - 64-bit filesystems are great, and necessary - being limited to 2GB or 4GB files is terrible. But no 64-bit CPU is necessary for that kind of thing, the filesystem just has to be written as 64-bit (which is easier said than done, and could easily sacrifice backwards-compatibility with various API's, but I digress...).

That being said - Intel might very well be moving down the wrong path - the Itanium is a huge, expensive, hot, completely new chip. Even Intel is hedging its bets on whether or not Itanium will take off - and AMD is poised to eat Intel's lunch with their new Hammer design.

Who knows, perhaps all CPU's from now on will be compatible with x86 IA32, and innovation will be in the various processing units that sit behind the instruction-set decoder. Take a look at AMD or Transmeta for examples of that, already.

The killer is custom-made systems...

[Kjella]

Rewriting standard applications to take advantage of the Itanium is one thing. However, companies that need a $10k+ server usually have programs that are specialized. After 20 years of the x86 standard there's a large codebase, although given a few improvements along the way. If you read the FreeDOS article a little while back companies were still running DOS in production systems, because it *works*. Porting it to Itanium will be a lot worse than porting it to x86-64 and Hammer. Let's face it, the hardware cost is usually minimal today. Software programmers however, are not cheap.

Kjella

Build an $8-10 server for $2k - um, no.

[sirwired]

No, you can't build something like a Netfinity (oops. er - xSeries eServer) in your garage for $2k. Built into a high-level xSeries is:

1) Hot-pluggable power supplies, drives, and PCI - slots.
2) Built-in hot-plug SCSI
3) Integrated service processor for diagnostics (essentially a computer within a computer)
4) Extremely well-tested box. (Very important to do integration testing on high-end units.)
5) Very nice, serviceable, rack-mount chassis
6) Crap-load of PCI slots
7) Light-path diagnostics. (Lets somebody without training figure out what's broke.)
8) IBM Director
9) Well-designed cooling that would be impossible to achieve with a garage box. (Do you know how to do airflow modeling?)
10) Support.

The list goes on...

Yes, they will become a commodity, in that you will be able to get them from multiple major manufacturers, but don't expect to build it yourself in your basement anytime soon.

SirWired

Wrong math, was Re:compilers

[HuguesT]

Hi,

Speed of light is 3.10^8 m/s

In a nanosecond (10^-9s), light travels 30cm,
not 1cm like you wrote.

Re: Wrong math, was Re:compilers

[Alan Partridge]

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?

Some more SPARC news...

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Peripheral communication.

[Christopher Thomas]

A fast CPU is nice, but how about upgrading the rest of the standard PC architecture and peripherals to the same level?

Weren't we all suppose to be using high-speed serial connections by now instead of a cocktail of SCSI (1/2/3, wide, fast, hold the mayo), IDE (ATA-33/66/100), parallel, 8 bit serial, USB, Firewire, PS/2, PCI, ISA (which is finally disappearing), etc. Heck, I'd be happy if the motherboard ran at even half to a third the speed of the cpu. :P

The good news is that USB is well on its way to completely replacing serial and parallel ports, and that PCI has been the One True Bus for the past couple of years now. Everything south of the southbridge is slowly fading away.

IMO, if we'd switched to 66 MHz 64-bit PCI years ago, we'd have no further problems on this front. In practice, PCI-X may finally be pushed through by Intel, and that will serve most internal communications needs. Motherboard chipsets are modular enough that it doesn't really matter what flavour of IDE/SCSI/firewire your drive is hanging off of; the drive controller is just another PCI device to the processor. You have enough bandwidth and DMA functionality on PCI bus to handle it.

The only peripherals that are currently bottlenecks are RAM and the video card. RAM is handled by upgrading the memory bus every couple of years. This is easy to do, because peripherals don't care what happens on the other side of the northbridge. The video card was handled adequately by the hack that is AGP (64-bit 66 MHz PCI would have been a much better idea, but that wouldn't have given Intel its nice AGP port to license).

The only peripheral that *might* be a problem in the future will be the network card (when gigabit cards finally come into vogue), and that will probably be what forces motherboard makers to put wider/faster PCI on to midrange boards and not just high-end boards.

In summary, this is less of a problem than it first appears to be.

The only serious bottleneck for performance is RAM latency, and that's not because of legacy peripherals.

Re:Peripheral communication.

[Christopher Thomas]

4X AGP is a 32-bit 266 MHz bus. That's more throughput than possible with PCI.

Unless you buy into Intel's PCI-X, which is 64/133.

And most graphics cards are not limited by bus bandwidth with *any* flavour of AGP (see the various Tom's Hardware benchmarks). The usual limit is fill rate for new cards, and lack of geometry processing for old cards (assuming you're playing a new game). Textures are stored on-card by any sane game, so the only thing going across the bus is lists of triangles.

AGP doesn't have contention with other devices on the bus so it doesn't have to do any logic for mastering or controlling and can allocate all its clocks to doing a data transfer.

While this would be an issue for very short data transfers, graphics cards will likely be transferring large batches of data. This is done in burst mode, which gives one transfer per clock.

Why would you want PCI? The only advantage PCI gives is that you can hang multiple devices off of it. But while that lets you get multiple monitor support easier, it will really kill your limited bandwidth.

You have bandwidth to spare; all you'd be doing in a multi-monitor setup is sending the same triangle lists over the bus, not cutting and pasting image data or doing texturing. Have one one dominant card and leave the others snooping traffic, and you have zero extra overhead for this.

The real benefit of having multiple video cards is that it lets you easily do render farming for things like games. Have each card render half the screen, and copy all cards' partial renderings to one card's frame buffer. 32/33 PCI is too slow to be practical for this, but 64/66 has more than enough bandwidth. I studied the feasibility of this at one of my past jobs.

Bwa Ha ha ha ha ha ...

[BadlandZ]

Sparc is dead, Sun doesn't have the money (more than US $1B we'll guess) to do another round

Someone remind me to post a link back to this story in a month or two when Sun announces their faster processors with solved ecache solutions...

Who's paying for this researcher?

[spinlocked]

Fud, fud, fud. I can't speak for the other companies but Sun can easily afford to fund R&D on the next generation SPARC chip, they've got 6 billion $ cash in hand. Let alone investments, and have done for over 2 years. BTW the current generation is UltraSPARCIII, UltraSPARCIV is just a fabrication improvement. Work is already underway on UltraSPARCV's design. Sun's crown jewels are SPARC/Solaris, when Sun stops working on their own OS/CPU/Server platform it's time to stop investing in them.

Not to rain on your parade...

[Chris Burke]

This is exactly why 'virtual machines' (VM) or 'Just In Time' (JIT) compilers will eventually replace the current series of compile to asm compilers.

Actually... Java/.NET and JIT compilers are exactly why "Merced" or "Itanic" isn't well suited for the very things it was supposed to be good at. You see, for a VLIW machine like those, the degree of compiler optimization required to achieve good performance is much greater than for a traditional RISC-ish machine (in which I'm including x86, for reasons I'm not going into). Essentially, to get maximum performance requires a great deal of compilation, profiling, and compiling again. This is all front-end overhead on your process. The whole idea behind JIT is that it's supposed to be fast, and occure when you download new code... But now the opposite is true. At this point, you're just as well off using a traditional-style compiler/profiler that produce traditional binaries.

Sorry. No VM utopia here.

Sounds like a trollish or clueless post.

[guacamole]

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)?

When peolpe start buying Itanium systems in volume, then the prices will drop on the Itanium systems. The reasons, they're expensive is not because the chips are hard to come by but because no one wants to buy them right now.

However, this comment alone makes me wonder about he posters cluelessness. He obviously hasn't worked in any real production environment. You people should realize that you simply can't build the kind of systems that Dell, HP, etc sell -today- out of commodity components. Take a look at a typical high-end SMP Dell server: propietary OEM motherboard, propietary case, hot-swap hard drives, hot-swap redundant power supplies and cooling, LOM support, etc. All components have been carefully designed to work together to produce a reliable, and scalable server system. You will never ever build the same kind of system on your own and if you do it's not going to be cheaper than buying one. Plus you don't get the vendor support.

The comment about SPARC being death is completely astonishing at the time when Sun is -THE- unix market leader. SPARC CPUs were never faster than the competition but that didn't worry Sun users as long as they were up to par with the competitors. The reason people buy Sun hardware is not the CPUs (CPU is alone is useless) but Solaris which is THE enterprise class OS and its applications, Sun's excellent support, massive multiprocessor scalability of Sun systems, massive I/O bandwidth, etc.

Current Sun chip is not bad at all (UltraSPARC III) and Sun is working on UltraSPARC V.

SPeed of ...

[leuk_he]

I think you are talking about the speed of electricty, which is much slower than the speed of light.

By the way the speed of light in matter (glass) is slower that the speed of light in vacuum.

And to answer your question: Yes.