Intel's Itanium 2: Succeed or Fail?

An anonymous reader writes "'Intel's most powerful processor ever has the ability to take on IBM, sink Sun, make or break HP, and crush or revive AMD,' says Fortune's David Kirkpatrick. But the 64-bit question is what happens to the heavyweight competition if Itanium 2 succeeds or fails?"

Comments

Backwards compatibility

[e8johan]

As Intel now loses its backwards compatibility, they also lose their biggest advantage. Sadly, the IA64 will probably lose out to less spectacular, but IA32 compatible designs.

Alpha tried to emulate the x86 earlier and failed. Sadly.

Re:Backwards compatibility

[yintercept]

The whole computer industry's been built on half-assed backward compatibility. Things are just backward compatible enough that people don't lose data and revolt, meanwhile the industry pushes businesses to buy new, expensive machines every every few years and upgrade all that old software. $$$

A 64bit chip and memory prices at new lows, No doubt Microsoft is looking forward to a big lucrative upgrade to Win64, so that they can break that constraining 4GM limit built into Win32.

Re:Backwards compatibility

[sql*kitten]

Alpha tried to emulate the x86 earlier and failed. Sadly.

Well, commercially it failed, because DEC were utterly useless at marketing anything, but technically there was nothing wrong with FX!32, performance was impressive, and it was smart enough to profile code at runtime and devote more resource to on-the-fly optimizing of frequently used code, while emulating code that was so infrequently used as to be not worth the effort of translating. If Microsoft were to market an FX!32-like product for Itanic, or even bundle it with their OS, the outcome would likely be radically different.

What I'd really like to know is:

[Bobzibub]

What exactly *is* the problem Intel has with manufacturing/designing Itanic? I always liked the theory.

Cheers,
-b

Re:What I'd really like to know is:

[Hoser McMoose]

The main problem is that the theory sounds good, but the reality shows a LOT of problems. The Itanium is a VLIW processor, which is quite different from the more traditional RISC and CISC designs of other chips. The idea is rather similar to the difference between RISC and CISC (which, these days, are more or less the same thing), move more of the optimizations into the compiler to make the chip design more simple, thereby allowing more money to be spent on fatter pipes, bigger caches, etc. for the chip.

The problem though, is that it's often EXTREMELY difficult for compilers to effectively optimize software for VLIW chips. Since the Itanium has no out-of-order execution or branch prediction, these things have to be done entirely at compile time. The compiler needs to organize the software so that the chip is constantly being fed with data rather than having the chip dynamically rearrange some instructions if others are sitting waiting for data. It also needs to include it's own concept of branch prediction, suggesting which branch is more likely to occur. What's even worse (and which I rarely see mentioned) is that it has to optimize it's software for a particular chip design rather than an architecture, ie Itanium software needs to be recompiled for the Itanium2 in order to see many of the benefits of the new chip.

As far as manufacturing goes, that's comparatively easy for Intel at least. There they just have to put up with a huge die and extremely high power consumption. Not exactly a cheap chip to manufacturer, but manufacturing chips has always been Intel's specialty. Also, the high selling price of the Itanium means that Intel can afford quite a bit of leeway.

Anyway, long story short, the big problem with the Itanium/IA64 in general is that it's a design that is VERY difficult to optimize code for. It requires a very good compiler to begin with, but even then there are simpily some optimizations that just can't be done at compile time, and those situations will hurt the performance of the IA64 chips a lot. If Spec CPU2000 scores are anything to go by, the things from CINT (ie databases, compression, FPGA design, compilers, etc.) are much harder to optimize for IA64 than CFP (mostly scientific computing applications).

Fail

[turgid]

It'll never be the success that intel and HP envision for it and here's why. First, it's too hot and too expensive. Secondly is doesn't have any applications. I don't mean Gnome and KDE, I mean the sort of applications that big corporations run. Thirdly it isn't backwards-compatible with any existing architectures. You can't just take your binaries over and run them, at least not at full speed. Applications will need to be ported and retested. This is not insignificant in time, effort and cost. Fourthly, most people who want 64-bit in the corporate world already have it in the form of SPARC, Power, PA RISC and Alpha. Why should they change to an unproven, immature "jam tomorrow" architecture given their working and reliable systems already in use? I'm afraid intel missed the boat by about 10 years. If they'd brought out a 64-bit RISC at the same time as SPARC, MIPS, Alpha and Power they might have stood a chance. It's a turkey, and apart from a few niches (e.g. number-crunching super computers) it's doomed to failure. I don't even need to mention how Athlon 64/Opteron will eat its lunch in the commodity sector of the market.

Re:Fail

[Graelin]

...Sigh here we go:

First, it's too hot and too expensive.

The people who buy these things know this and can deal with it. Remember, these are not crammed in like Mini-ATX towers (like the one under your desk). They're deployed by professionals in a professional environment with standards for this stuff.

Secondly is doesn't have any applications. I don't mean Gnome and KDE, I mean the sort of applications that big corporations run.

Big Corporations can and will port their existing (probably already 64-bit) applications to Itanium to take advantage of the newer / faster platform. ISVs are already porting applications to it and have been for a while.

Thirdly it isn't backwards-compatible with any existing architectures. You can't just take your binaries over and run them, at least not at full speed. Applications will need to be ported and retested. This is not insignificant in time, effort and cost.

See above. Porting will and has happened. If the logic can be presented that the company will either save or gain money by upgrading to this hardware then it will happen. It just makes business sense.

Fourthly, most people who want 64-bit in the corporate world already have it in the form of SPARC, Power, PA RISC and Alpha. Why should they change to an unproven, immature "jam tomorrow" architecture given their working and reliable systems already in use?

When the systems already in use are cost prohibitive to maintain they will be abandoned. A smart company will see the trend and start migration early. The Sparc platform is dated and loosing it's performance edge very quickly. The IBM Power series is still a reasonable choice. PA RISC who? Alpha who? You need to understand that IT departments invest for the long-haul, you won't see too many more shiney new Alphas being purchased not because they're bad but because C[T|I]Os know they're a doomed platform.

I'm afraid intel missed the boat by about 10 years. If they'd brought out a 64-bit RISC at the same time as SPARC, MIPS, Alpha and Power they might have stood a chance.

Or they could be going under like so many of the platforms you just mentioned. The 64bit world is certainly not new but it definitly requires some re-thinking in todays world. Intel is in a great position to do that.

I don't even need to mention how Athlon 64/Opteron will eat its lunch in the commodity sector of the market.

You don't need to say it because you can't say it. At least not yet. I too doubt that Itanium will be a hugh smash in the commodity arena. Not because it's inferior (I'm not arguing that either way) but because the money isn't there.

The companies that need and use 64-bit applications will not want those applications running on commodity hardware. They'll want a well supported platform and one that works time and again. Itanium can provide this. IBM can provide this. AMD cannot - they don't even make their own motherboards for christ sake.

Frankly, once a company has enough business to justify a 64bit platform they'll probably be profitable enough to deplay a good one - not the one from CompUSA.

Re:Fail

[turgid]

..Sigh here we go:
I take it you have a vested interest in itanic?

The people who buy these things know this and can deal with it. Remember, these are not crammed in like Mini-ATX towers (like the one under your desk). They're deployed by professionals in a professional environment with standards for this stuff.

For your information I have a 64-bit dual processor Sun Ultra 60 and a Dell PC under my desk. I also run several multi-processor 64-bit servers used daily for building Open Source and Free software.

See above. Porting will and has happened. If the logic can be presented that the company will either save or gain money by upgrading to this hardware then it will happen. It just makes business sense.

What logic is this? How can completely recompiling, and retesting and reimplementing your infrastructure save money? It's not obvious. Please explain.
PA RISC who? Alpha who? You need to understand that IT departments invest for the long-haul, you won't see too many more shiney new Alphas being purchased not because they're bad but because C[T|I]Os know they're a doomed platform.

And why are they doomed? Not for any reason other than they provided the biggest threat to the (inferior) itanic, so they were artificially removed from the market place to try to boost itanic's position. There are a whole load of angry and dis-satisfied former HP, Compaq and DEC customers who are being forced to change simply for change's sake, because it suits intel's plans for world domination, and not for solid technical reasons. It itanic is so wonderful, it should have been left to compete on its supposed technical merits. I'm afraid this is a case where the politicians, marketeers and sales droids have ruined a lot of good technology and a lot of good business.

You don't need to say it because you can't say it. At least not yet. I too doubt that Itanium will be a hugh smash in the commodity arena. Not because it's inferior (I'm not arguing that either way) but because the money isn't there.

Athlon 64 will succeed simply because it is an evolutionary improvement on existing technology. There is nothing to lose on the customer's part. They can go on using their existing software, only a bit faster than before.

Re:Fail

[cptgrudge]

I know a bunch of "sheep" that just follow whatever Microsoft does.

I get the feeling that when you say "sheep" you are implying that they cannot be changed. I know what you mean. My boss is a Microsoft guy through and through. He got all giddy when we installed IIS on an internal server. He says, "We can use this. We can set up a department web page!" Nevermind the fact that he doesn't even know what HTML code is, much less how to code it. I tried to explain Apache, setting up a MySQL database, and even coding a little AI front-end for people to interactively ask questions. His eyes glazed over.

Some people just use brand recognition to make their purchases. They see the advertisements from one of the myriad sources these days, and whether they know it or not, they are influenced by it in their buying decisions.

However, it isn't necessarily people like my boss that will be buying these chips. Wouldn't the people initially buying these chips be the systems builders? They test performance before they make a significant committment to a product. Although there can be (not so) little things like contracts to uphold, I suppose.

How could these "sheep" see the light? Explaining it in technical terms isn't always the best solution, and anecdotal evidence is often dismissed. I found that a simple TCO analysis can do wonders convincing the higher-ups. We did just that when trying to go on leases for our computers instead of out-right buying them. We showed that there was a financial incentive to doing it that way. Money is something that everybody understands.

Re:Fail

[christophersaul]

Not all apps can be run on clusters of cheapo Intel! Who's *actually* running Oracle RAC on Lintel, really? Who, apart from Google, runs a set up like Google?

For example, if you're a Sun customer, like and use Solaris, you buy the low cost Sun boxes for the front end and rely on warranty for your maintenance needs. When you have an app that benefits from larger SMP boxes, you buy the larger SMP boxes and maybe rely on warranty if they're horizontally scalable apps, like say, app servers, running on 480s or v880s for example.

On your really large SMP apps, campus clusters, massive server consolidations, mainframe replacement F15Ks and the like, you buy a service contract.

Cheap Intel hardware isn't some amazing panacea that's going to replace large machines. Theres's also the cost of managing all those small boxes to take into account. A couple of reliable and available SMP Unix boxes can well be more cost effective than lots of little boxes.

Re:Fail

[FatherOfONe]

The only way I have found to convince Microsoft biggots is cost. That is why I have been able to get a lot of Linux/Open Source in places. It's kinda funny that security, speed, and reliability hardly ever come up. Now, understand that I have to do all the work setting the stuff up!

Once a "Free" alternative is in and works well (or at least as well as Microsoft) then they "see the light" and start rolling it out.

Microsoft cannot compete with Linux/ Open Source on cost. Even their argument of TCO is being shot down.

Re:It's all about the OS

[sql*kitten]

Itanium/2 is a 64 bit processor. So it needs 64 bit software, including the OS.

Umm, no. For example I am running 32-bit Solaris on a 64-bit UltraSPARC. And applications compiled 32-bit.

Whereas in the case of Windoze, the 32 bit stuff (and even some 16 bit stuff) is built right in to the API.

Yes, that's why it's called the Win32 API. Work is well under way on Win64, but in Microsoft's ideal world, almost no-one will write to the Win64 API - they'll target the CLR, which itself will be 64-bit native.

Then the millions of apps that people use, right now an excellent way to lock customers in, are going to turn into a lodestone around their necks.

Yes, just like when Apple moved from 68k to PPC? Nope, wasn't a problem.

I'm sure Micro$oft is pissed as hell, but Linux is going to take a huge upswing when Itaniums start flying off the shelves.

That doesn't necessarily follow either. After all, Win 3.11 didn't fully exploit the 80386 either, and it wasn't 'til the first NT that Microsoft did.

Re:It's all about the OS

[JKR]

Wrong, wrong wrong! You don't know what you're talking about. MS have been transitioning the API to being 64 bit clean for at least a year, probably two; They already supplied a 64 bit SDK/DDK with the MSDN so developers can check their applications. FFS, Nvidia are SHIPPING 64 bit video drivers for their cards for WinXP-64.

It's already happening, you just haven't noticed it yet.

Jon.

Re:It's all about the OS

[stratjakt]

You might remember the same situation when Win32s and then Win95 were released. It took a few months for most of the apps to be rereleased in a native 32 bit format. Luckily win16 was (and is) still supported. Such will be the case with 64 bit desktops.

There have been articles in the MSDN about porting existing code to 64 bit windows API for a while.

I've perused them and there's really no major learning curve. Most stuff will just recompile as is, except for a few pointer hyjinks and some more esoteric inlined ASM.

Thing is, the same problems can apply to Linux and other OS code. Sloppy code is sloppy code no matter the social viewpoints of its authors.

I just *adore* this extremism.

[hitzroth]

I think the author has it backwards. He says if the new chip fails then blah. However, the more coherent argument is that if blah happens, then Intel's new chip has failed.

But, the author doesn't seem to realize that there's more than just out and out success or failure on the spectrum. It's more likely that there will be incremental change. Intel sells X units to A, B, and C, AMD sells Y to D, E, and F, and IBM, SUN, and co. sell to whomever. And things kinda ballance out.

All this new technology that's supposed to change everything dramatically, changes things to the degree that it's touted to. My money is still on evolution rather than revolution.

Re:It's all about the OS

[stratjakt]

Aw heck, I've seen plenty of those same assumptions in OSS code as well. Assuming int is 16 bits, and the such.

Not everyone has the energy to type malloc(sizeof(int)*20)

Bad coding habits are endemic in the free, Free, and proprietary worlds.

Good code will 'just work', bad code will need fixing to work natively.

Dare I say it

[Anonymous Coward]

It feels like it is time for chips that run at 2ghz, but at 1/10th the power and produce 1/4 of the heat. With grid computing growing steadily, trying to cool 5 or 10K servers at the current heat and power level is crazy. Heck trying to cool 10 rack mount server sufficiently is hard enough without stuffing 34 of them into a rack. Look at all the cases out there for extreme cooling these days. I don't about anyone else, but if each 1U rackmount only needed 2 fans total instead of 7, it would save a lot of money.

Plus, less power consumption could mean thousands or tens of thousands depending how many servers you have. If you're google or some other huge site with thousands of systems, the power savings means lower operation overhead.

Re:Dare I say it

[Anonymous Coward]

but at 1/10th the power and produce 1/4 of the heat.
1/10 of the power == 1/10 of the heat, 99.99% of the power is convetret to heat. But maybe I do not follow recent development and your Athlon allready has 6000K and shines like the Sun...

Intel is crushing itself against Moore's Law

[jj_johny]

OK, its great that Intel and other can make a 64 bit processor. Its great that they are making faster and faster 32 bit processors. But the big question is where is the market? And I don't mean that there is nothing that needs the speed. There is plenty but compared the previous market where any new processor would be scooped up and would have a 10% market share. Then it got that computers were so cheap that Intel and everyone else thought that since everyone was buying more high end systems that the trend would go on forever.

Well, the trend broke in 2001 when people started to notice that the machines needed for this generation of software was not the fastest but the slowest machines on the market. That most users did not need a top end machine and instead could buy the slowest processor out there. During 2002, the same came true for lap tops. Now everyone is swimming in so much wasted CPU power that it is going to finally crush those that can't adapt to radically lower needs compared to what Intel and their competitors are churning out. Ask someone who runs a computer room and they will tell you that they are quickly consolidating old servers that cost $250K three years ago to a server that costs $15K and only takes up a quarter of the room.

Intel is in real danger of not surviving because it does not understand where we will be in 5 years. 5 years ago when they were in the middle of this effort they did not see our need for speed slowing dramticly and are now producing a chip that has such a limited market that it will never be profitable with all the investment that was in put in.

When you look at how a company responds to the typical S curve of development, they may make the first curve but often that screws up their timing on the second curve and they just go off the cliff.

Re:Intel is crushing itself against Moore's Law

[Junks Jerzey]

Excellent post, mod this up please. While there are people who need that performance, the rest of us are in heaven with what's currently available. For around $1000, you can get a 2.4GHz P4 that's so fast you can write Quake 3 in interpreted Smalltalk and it runs like lightning. Times are good. The fanboys who insist that they need 5% more speed for some game or whatever have become such a small minority that they're irrelevent (except that they control PC techie news sites and are extremely vocal). You'd have to be crazy to pay the $1000+ premium to move to 3.06GHz, especially when you also get more power and heat problems at the same time.

What we need now are even lower costs, lower power consumption, and smaller form factors. Active cooling, giant heat sinks, systems with five fans: good riddance. What we really want is the 2.4GHz equivalent of the Apple II, Atari 800, and Commodore 64. Something small and reliable that lets people be creative. Something that boots in two seconds. Something that isn't an IT nightmare, as are Windows and Linux. Something that one person could understand and master.

An interesting question is "Will the current crop of lowish-end handhelds, like the PocketPC, catch up enough to subsume desktop PCs entirely?" Certainly the high end processor manufacturers have lost their minds and are designing systems for Boeing and the Department of Defense, not *people*.

Remember 1987

[Lucas Membrane]

We were at about the same stage of adoption of 32 bits then as for 64 bits now. The first 32-bit machines were coming out and MS and IBM were committed to OS2 running on 16-bit hardware. It took about 4 years for 32-bit hardware to become fairly typical and about 4 more years for software to catch up. But this was driven by a widespread discomfort living within the confines of the 16-bit world. Such discomfort with 32 bits is not now common except for server applications in large organizations. So, we can expect it to take at least as long for the 64-bit technology to dominate.

It is something of a question whether this change will open up opportunities for new software. I think it will. Think shared memory -- very large memory spaces being simultaneously updated and accessed by multiple independent processes and processors performing different tasks possibly for different users. The three drivers of technology are corporate databases, games, and pornography. Huge memory spaces with multiple processors attached have many possible breathtaking applications in each of these domains. Start coding.

Mindshare over technical merit

[snapperOrgans]

I think the success of the Itanium not only rests on its technical merits but more importantly it rests with how much mindshare they can get for the product with the business people who, more often than not, end up making technical decision in a void.

I think that Intel is aware of this. Marketing can make the product. The best engineered solution does not always win out.

CPU power has become a commodity

[pieterh]

With Linux and Java, the actual CPU used inside a box is close to irrelevant. This was the same fact that made the DEC Alpha irrelevant: every program that ran on Alpha ran fine on Intel, with the exception of OpenVMS and Digital Unix software, which were also the only markets where Alphas sold.

Today, the OS has also become a commodity item, and niche OSes such as OpenVMS and Digital Unix are dead or nearing death. A hot expensive CPU cannot capture a market when it has to compete on a level playing field with cheap CPUs that run the same software can can be easily clustered or SMP'd to get the same performance.

The only way to break into a saturated market is to cut prices... does Itanium do this? I don't think so.

They may sell a few for the gadget hunters. But the notion of a CPU competing with IBM is so funny it's almost hilarious.

Re:If it fails...

[larien]

Sun got hammered with the endless delays to UltraSPARC-III. When it came out, it whipped the opposition in the 64-bit arena until IBM released the Power4, which beat up SPARC in turn.

Sun are still scheduled to release the UltraSPARC-IV this year (at last report) which will be dual-core (same as Power4) and might again leapfrog IBM for a while.

Sun aren't doing that badly, all things considered, given the current state of the economy. We'll see how things pan out over the next few years, but it's too early to say Sun/SPARC is dying.

Itantium and the Fortune Article

[Paul_murphy]

Mr. Kirkpatrick's article draws significant business conclusions - Dell will prosper, Sun will fail- from his analysis of the relative positions of the players today. I believe that most of what he cites as fact is wrong:

1. on little things such as the chips in playstations;
2. on historical issues such as the history of the Power4;
3. on industry structure such as seeing Dell as a manufacturor; and,
4. on interpretations such as his comments on the value of 64bit-edness;

but I'm not sure his conclusions are wrong.

More precisely, you can't draw his conclusions from either his "facts" or his arguments, but that doesn't invalidate the conclusions.

For one thing articles like this become self-fulling prophecies and their prevalence in management oriented publications like Fortune help explain how Sun can be both a strong company and very weak share.

He may well be right on the specific issue of Itanium's future. Technically it's a pretty good chip and the fact that it's late and under-powered won't be important in the long run -the PA-RISC, which became a significant success, was also late and under-powered.

So will the Itantic sink? In my opinion Mr. kirkpatrick's article missed most of the significant elements in today's market picture that will affect this.

For example, the right parallel could turn out to be Intel's original Pentium Pro. As Intel's first completely 32 bit chip it was, briefly, a world leader in performance but only on 32bit applications. Since most Microsoft software used the older 16bit instruction sets, its performance on the Pentium Pro was terrible. As a result AMD was able to seize significant market share with its K-586 and Intel was quickly forced to re-introduce 16bit compatiblity in the Pentium line.

Years later the Pentium Pro came back - as the xeon - and that could easily be Itanic's fate too, if management at companies like Sun and AMD get their act together and make it happen. (see my article for my comments on how this could be done).

Re:Fail - Nobody ever got fired buying Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so quick to predict the demise of Itanium. I would question your analysis based on past history of Intel products.

1. Heat - has been an issue since the 8087 and lower power products or improvements in heat removal technology have continuously become available. Even in current Itanium/Itanium 2 (Itanium Processor Family - IPF) products, heat is an issue but not one that is preventing IPF products from shipping. Over time you will see a significant reduction in dissipation in Deerfield/Monticito (SP?) but, in any case, solutions to the heat issue are becoming available.

2. Cost - Intel products are only expensive while customers are willing to pay high prices for them. Any time Intel has had competitive pressures, they have been able to drop the price to meet the new price point OR introduce new products that allow them to maintain their margins.

3. Nobody seems to understand that there is an IA-32 processor core built into the chips (starting with McKinley (Itanium 2)). For backwards compatibility, it's really an operating system issue more than a hardware/software emulator issue. When the operating systems are properly implemented, IPF will be able to run 32-bit IA-32 applications concurrently with 64-bit IPF applications. When Linux supports this, I think you'll see interest in Hammer wane.

4. I would disagree with your comments on the people who want 64-bit already have them. I would not disagree that there are limited projects testing out different 64-bit architectures, but I would be very surprised at there being any large server farms out there with the latest incantations of Power or Alpha and the SPARC/MIPS are probably looking for an upgrade.

5. Itanium is ideally suited for Linux. I agree with your comments with regards to Windows - but when you are upgrading to a new Linux release don't you rebuild/retest the application to make sure it still runs? In our Linux systems we have been able to port directly from IA-32 to IPF without any changes to application software.

I believe that there is a lot of opportunity in the market for a "standard" 64-bit processor and this is what IPF is designed for. IPF may not be the best or the first but they do have the track record in taking over a market and maintaining it. Nobody has made a lot of money betting against Intel and nobody has ever gotten fired for choosing their products.

Itanium? Yea, for Linux

[jimfrost]

A couple of years ago I was interviewed by a tech publication and asked what I thought Itanium's chances were. I told them if it was going to succeed, it would succeed on Linux' coattails. I figured that it would have no chance if it has to depend on Windows.

I still think that's true. Windows on Itanium is a terrible value proposition -- almost nothing will be native for years and years to come, and x86 execution mode is way way too slow to be cost effective. I think we'll see very little Windows on Itanium.

OTOH, Itanium is virtually ideal for vendors moving from proprietary chips/UNIXen to Linux. I was still fairly skeptical about Linux' chances back then, but I'm not anymore. Linux on Itanium is going to be a smash hit and will dominate the datacenter.

Windows on servers is ... iffy. I see the possibility that AMD's x86-64 will be a hit in that market, but you'd have thought Athlon would be interesting too and it was completely ignored. Then again it's Microsoft's only real chance in the large server market so you can count on them pushing it really hard. If they succeed then expect an Itanium with a much improved x86 execution mode; I don't think Intel will go the extended-x86 route. If AMD does not succeed then Windows is going to be pigeonholed as a small server.

Regarding other chips, only POWER looks set to survive/thrive, but only in traditional IBM environments. Sun is in the middle of a financial collapse; I would be surprised if we see more than one additional generation of SPARC technology from them. Fujitsu has a nice SPARC, years ahead of Sun, but SPARC stuff is such a bad value proposition these days that it and Sun are going to die fast.

Re:It's all about the OS

[BasharTeg]

Well, Mr. PhysicsGenius, you're obviously not a genius when it comes to CPU architecture, operating systems, or the Windows APIs. I hate to flame the pro-Linux crowd (mainly because they hold most of the /. mod points), but this sort of thing, both in Linux and BSD crowds, is what makes us all look stupid. Like when you see these Windows vs Linux comparisons. Advocacy is great! Ignorant advocacy, however, is detremental to the cause. I mean look at this crap. This guy's point is that Windows is bound to a 32bit architecture and will have great difficulty moving to 64bit. Yet there have already been 64bit versions of Windows, and there already ARE versions of Windows in various stages of development for IA-64 and AMD's x86-64, not to mention that there were ports to Alpha and other platforms. This is the purest ignorance. My point is this. If you love Linux, tell people you use Linux. If you love BSD, tell people you use BSD. If they ask why, say "because it is so stable" or something. But don't say "because the archtecture is tuned in such a way as to make the porting to 64bit platforms much easier than W1nd0ze. I bet you M1cro$l0th will go out of business with 64bit CPUs become the norm!!" It makes you sound like a complete tool. Especially when you say "Windoze" and "Micro$loth". May I refer you to the following Penny-Arcade cartoon:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002- 07 -22&res=l

Relevance?

[Servo]

I don't see how a new processor from Intel, or anybody else for that matter, is going to cause "serious competition" for any vendor such as HP, IBM, or Sun. When choosing a solution, IT doesn't go for Sun because its run on a Sparc CPU. They don't choose IBM because it runs a PowerPC. I give up on why they choose HP. :)

The point is, the CPU is just 1 little part in a solution. Intel isn't going to do any damage to these vendors unless they supply the entire solution, which isn't their business! To think otherwise is pretty dumb and a bunch of PR bullshit attempting to inflate Intel's stock value.

Re:It's the desktop stupid

[swordgeek]

Heh. WRONG!

Well, maybe not wrong on the processor side. From the vendor side (i.e. the Dells, IBMs, Compaqs, Toshibas of the world), there's just no margin to be made. Services are the only places these companies make money on the desktop, and even that's a tough sell.

Now if Intel can sell decent volume at a decent profit, they'll be fine. However, if the desktop manufacturers can't make a profit on the desktop, then the desktop computer will become a commodity, and CPU prices/profits will fall as a result.

So Intel has to keep both oars in the water. Besides, this processor is FAR bigger than just Intel. Look at the companies who collaborated on it.

Re:Who loses?

[dpilot]

I won't argue with a thing you say.

I'll only argue with the people lining up to take the IA-64 path. People have pretty much gotten into the mold of assuming that Microsoft will WIN any battle, at least in its core competence (?) arena. It seems that Intel is getting that same priviledged status.

What's worse is that people seem to allow Microsoft, and presumably now Intel, to WIN permanently, game over. Anyone else who Wins a market battle only survives until the next battle with Microsoft or Intel. Pain in the neck attitude, if you ask me. But then, Linux has shown chinks in Microsoft's armor, at least in the server space, and AMD won the last round. I only hope competition can be kept alive.