Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Itanium Retreats To Multis, Opteron Presses Attack

Posted by timothy on from the personification-personified dept.

vincecate writes " Back in 1997 Itanium was presented as a compatible extension of x86, and Intel had dreams of replacing high end x86 by 1999 (about min 16 in link). However, the original 2001 Itanium had the 32-bit performance of a much older Pentium so Itanium is viewed as non-compatible. Now with the rise of what Microsoft is calling the "x64" architecture (AMD64 and EM64T), Itanium has been repositioned to the multiprocessor server market."

However, Opterons are designed for multiprocessing. Each has its own memory and built in hypertransport links to make NUMA multiprocessors. So existing Opterons don't need large expensive caches like Xeon MP, nor any glue chips for up to 8-way multiprocessors. This has started the commoditization of multiprocessors. You can now buy a 4-way Opteron for $6000 or an 8-way for $10,000.

There is an interesting interview with Tyan CEO and his assistant that give some info about future Opteron plans. People are working on 8-way motherboards that will become 16-way when duel-core Opterons come out. They also say that the next Opteron core, the K9, will be able to 'go over 60 processors without adding any external crossbar chips.' Another fun plan mentioned is connecting the hypertransport links using fibers for really large systems."

61 comments

  1. x64 vs x86? by Ianoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why have Microsoft decided to call AMD64/EMT64 "x64"? Surely this will just add to confusion rather than improve matters, since CLEARLY x86 is better than x64, because it's higher!

    A better name would just be x86-64 or some generic marketing term. Any suggestions?

    1. Re:x64 vs x86? by brsmith4 · · Score: 2

      Your average Joe Six Pack has likely never heard the term 'x86' therefore hearing 'x64' would probably result in little confusion as far as marketing goes. Your average systems administrator likely has heard both terms and would know the difference anyway. I think x64 has a nice ring to it myself. It sounds like an experimental aircraft project.

    2. Re:x64 vs x86? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      I'd never heard "x64" before today.

      My preference is "86-64" -- get rid of the "x" business all together.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    3. Re:x64 vs x86? by obeythefist · · Score: 3, Informative

      But if you want to remove the x, you can't be vague about the 86 - you'd need to reference the full 8086-64, although the CPU's we use today are markedly different from 8086, more like 80586-64, but then the 586 was really the pentium(tm) brand, so to be correct and without using an "x", you have to call it the pentium-64, which is really inaccurate because AMD's K8 hammer family is very different to a pentium internally, much more powerful CPU's. So it just isn't going to work.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    4. Re:x64 vs x86? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      But "x" is good marketing!

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  2. Xeon and Itanium will share the same bus by johnjones · · Score: 1

    future intel systems will have a server and consumer Front Side Bus

    that means that all the Xeon boards will accept Itanium and means large Itanium systems could accept Xeon's (x86_64) and so those huge clusters could also be x86_64 clusters or IA64 clusters...

    intel hedge bets

    plus I thought that hypertransport bandwidth was good but not great (why the memory controler was on chip) so that means accessing memory on another processor would be expensive...

    hmmm if all the processors are working on the same dataset what happens ?

    regards

    John Jones

    1. Re:Xeon and Itanium will share the same bus by questionlp · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Itanium already uses a modified GTL/GTL+ bus, the only difference is that it runs at a difference speed than the bus used by the current Xeon DP/MP processors. What will happen though is that Intel will use a common socket, bus and socket for both the Xeon and the Itanium.

      Intel and HP are already doing something like that with their dual-core PA-RISC workstation, as it uses the same socket and chipset as the Itanium... the only difference is that the firmware used was designed for the PA-RISC. That right there shows that the workstation could be converted into an Itanium workstation in the future if HP wanted to.

      Hypertransport is great for high bandwidth, but because it is a serialized connection, latency increases. Of course, in large servers, you are going to get pretty high latency anyway... the difference is that the Opteron does not have to share a single bus for both memory and I/O like the Xeon and the Itanium. Higher latency was a trade-off AMD had to make, but at least they are separating local memory traffic from I/O traffic for each processor.

    2. Re:Xeon and Itanium will share the same bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hypertransport bandwidth in current AMD chips is plenty for multiprocessor systems, and current AMD chips aren't even close to pushing the limits of the technology. Opterons run single 800mhz or 1Ghz links, while G5 macs are already running up to dual 1.25Ghz links (which is somewhat compensated for by the fact they don't have a separate bus for accessing main memory, and use those same links for inter-processor communications, which AMD again does with a separate bus).

      And of course, Hypertransport2 is coming Real Soon Now(TM), and promises to be an order of magnitude faster, as well as adding goodies like PCIe compatibility.

  3. x86 code size advantage over Itanium by vincecate · · Score: 4, Informative
    It is reported that IPF executable images are typically three times the size of equivalent Alpha executables. I used crosstool to make a gcc cross compiler, and found Itanic (IPF) code to be twice the size of AMD64 code. This is a significant architectural price/performance difference when it comes to either cache size or memory bandwidth, and no doubt part of why Itanics are so expensive.

  4. Intel attempts to move away from x86 by vincecate · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The AMD multiprocessor plan seems like an Itanic killer. History will probably record Itanium as Intel's VLIW attempt to break away from x86. Very similar to their failed IAPX_432 object oriented attempt and their i860 RISC attempt to move customers away from x86. Each time Intel seemed to use the architectural fad of the day to try to move people off x86 but without good backward compatibility. Each time seems to have failed badly.

    1. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by questionlp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Although AMD is not directly aiming the Opteron at the Itanium (instead it's aimed more towards the Xeon DP and Xeon MP), the Opteron can be very competitive against the Itanium in a fair number of scenarios. There are some places where the Itanium will beat the AMD in performance, but it also costs more. For instance, the Itanium (with a bit of help from SGI) can scale into the hundreads of processors and still be able to run a single kernel image. Right now, that isn't exactly doable with the Opteron.

      Intel is aiming their Xeon with EM64T at the Opteron while pinning the Itanium against Sun's UltraSPARC, IBM's POWER, etc. Unfortunately, the Itanium is also used as a replacement for the PA-RISC and the Alpha :\

      I favor the Opteron over the Itanium because of backwards compatibility without performance problems, lower cost, lower power consumption and better I/O and memory throughput.

      I have bashed the Itanium in the past... but I still think it is a bit too early to sent it crashing towards an iceberg and sinking it soon. It does have it's good qualities, but also a fair amount of downsides.

    2. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      The iAPX 432 was a complete and utter failure; by comparison, ia64 has been a success. Ia64 *is* seeing design wins, and does have market niches where it's a good choice. The iAPX 432 was just a dog.

    3. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by Yenya · · Score: 1
      For instance, the Itanium (with a bit of help from SGI) can scale into the hundreads of processors and still be able to run a single kernel image. Right now, that isn't exactly doable with the Opteron.

      This (SGI Altixes) is not a feature of Itanium, but rather of the proprietary S-HUB chips and NUMAlink. Opteron can scale easily as well, provided that you accompany it with a right chipset (as opposed to 1-4 CPU Opteron boxes which can live without an external northbridge).

      Just take alook at Cray XD-1 - they are doing the same for Opterons as SGI does for Itaniums.

      Nonetheless, Itanium2 still has a FP performance superior to Opteron.

      --
      -Yenya
      --
      While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. --Linus
    4. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by vincecate · · Score: 1
      The iAPX 432 was a complete and utter failure; by comparison, ia64 has been a success. Ia64 *is* seeing design wins, and does have market niches where it's a good choice. The iAPX 432 was just a dog.
      Intel is said to have spent $5 billion on Itanic. They sold 100,000 chips in 2003. If you say $3,000/chip that is $300 mil. I think it is safe to say that Intel has lost more money on ia64 than they did on iAPX 432. And the percentage of x86 that moved to ia64 is also about 0.

      Intel admitted the iAPX 432 was a failure and killed it. However, they have not yet admitted the ia64 is, so the blood will keep draining for awhile yet. Sometimes a clear failure hurts less than a not so clear failure.

    5. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by vincecate · · Score: 1
      Intel admitted the iAPX 432 was a failure and killed it. However, they have not yet admitted the ia64 is, so the blood will keep draining for awhile yet. Sometimes a clear failure hurts less than a not so clear failure.
      Another thing is they seem to have reduced development of the x86 since they thought Itanic was working. They put their best guys on the Itanic and just sort of tweeked the P4 for years. This let AMD pass them. Intel could loose many billions because of this. Intel's stock is already down tens of billions this year.

    6. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by vincecate · · Score: 1
      Nonetheless, Itanium2 still has a FP performance superior to Opteron.
      Only in FP-Performance/CPU, and not by that much. By most other measures Opteron wins. If you look at FPP/$, FPP/watt, FP/motherboard, FP/cubic-foot Opteron wins. Opteron has 4-way on a motherboard, and moving to 8 and 16-way on a motherboard while Itanic is looking at 2 to 4-way. In the end price/performance is far more important that absolute performance per CPU.
    7. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you are absolutely wrong. Just because a chip is a quarter the price and half as powerful it means you need double the number of them to achieve the same performance. The interconnect overhead and scalability problems at this level are massive, so cost would outweigh the better power/$ metric of the individual CPUs.

    8. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It really is too bad that Intel often seemed to bet on the wrong cpu. The 960 which was a development of the iAPX432 was a very good chip. Much better than the i860 but Intel removed the mmu and pushed it into the embeded market.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Since the Itanium seems to be falling behind I have wonder if the Alpha might rise from the grave. Probably not but it is a nice idea.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by questionlp · · Score: 1

      The Alpha as we knew it probably won't be rising from the graves... but parts of it will get merged into the Itanium (at least that is what Intel has been showing in their pretty presentations).

      I hope they do make very, very good use of the Alpha engineers that they got.

    11. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by questionlp · · Score: 1

      The Itanium can scale up to 8, 16, 32 or even 64 processor modules (where each module can contain one or two processors, a la HP's mx2) whereas the Opteron is only available in four-processor configurations. 8-way servers are still in the work and aren't available in volume yet.

    12. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by questionlp · · Score: 1

      It looks like someone is releasing an 8-way Opteron pretty soon. From the specifications, it's nice to see that they are providing each processor with enough memory slots to allow for full 128-bit memory connection and Infiniband connectivity.

    13. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I just wonder if the Itanium is just a bad idea all around. Intel tried the "put the smarts in the compiler" idea with the i860 and it was a total failure. RISC chips like the PowerPC, Power4, Xscale/ARM family, and the Alpha seem to be better bets than the Itaniums ISA. Yes Intel and AMD have done wonders making pigs fly but this decoupleing of ISA from logic seems to be a bad plan in the long run. How much of P4 and AMD64 chip is wasted on nasty decodeing logic just to run 8086 instructions? The Alpha, Mips, Arm, and even Sparc are faster per reasearch dollar spent on them than the Intel Pentium line.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. The Opteron can't even physically address 1/8th the amount of memory that SGI has in their biggest systems. No ifs or buts about it, Opteron can't do it.

      Also it isn't very impressive that the Opteron just barely beats a chip released years ago in some areas and gets trounced by it in others.

    15. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next generation logic will always have different requirements than current generation ISAs.

      Once you accept that you can't generate a new ISA to match each new CPU, you've already accepted serious decoding logic.

      Once you've accepted decoding logic, you might as well use an ISA that is by far the most popular, and one of the most dense.

      No one can pull a MIPS every generation and design the ISA explicitly around the current implementation.

    16. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by vincecate · · Score: 1
      The Opteron can't even physically address 1/8th the amount of memory that SGI has in their biggest systems.
      1 TB is more than most people need this year, and next years Opterons could extend this.
      Also it isn't very impressive that the Opteron just barely beats a chip released years ago in some areas and gets trounced by it in others.
      At spec.org Opteron is up with recent Itaniums at costing 3 times as much on specInt and not far behind on FP. Again, a 4-way Opteron motherboard is probably cheaper than a 2-way Itanium. If you compare equal investments in money, Opteron is very impressive.
    17. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were talking about the big SGI systems. They regularly run over 1TB, up to about 8TB or so.

    18. Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's more, x86-64 scrapped the option for a larger page size, which makes it a bad choice for huge memory systems. Itanium2's 64K pages run at 1/16th the operating system, page table, and tlb overhead of Operon's.

      Suppose an 8TB system memory size were possible with the Opteron. This would mean the lists of "struct pages" in a recent linux kernel would consume 64GB of memory (2 entire nodes worth).

      In reality, on the itanium 2, it consumes 4GB of memory. And I think even 128 and 256K pages can be used too.

  5. Re:Sexium by Bastian · · Score: 2, Funny

    We've been on Pentium way too long. Since six comes after five, let's call it "Sexium."

  6. Ready... FIGHT! by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 4, Funny

    People are working on 8-way motherboards that will become 16-way when duel-core Opterons come out.

    That will be soo cool when we have duel core opeterons. Can you imagine 16 opetrons dueling it out in your case?

    Cool! Wicked Awesome!!!

    What? A typo. Oh. Err... I knew that...

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
  7. Itanium, Opteron related news... by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Itanium Retreats To Multis, Opteron Presses Attack.
    In related news, Megatron Retreats to Cybertron, Optimus Prime Presses Attack.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  8. Optimus Prime died and went to the Matrix. by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1

    I was watching the movie with my nephew [he's four].

    I don't think he quite understood what happened, but if he had, I think he would have been devastated.

  9. US$6000/1000 for 4/8 CPUs by hbackert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Those offerings from Rocketcalc are dual Operon boards with orginary clustering. The only difference is, they put them in one case. A 4 CPU or 8 CPU Opteron box is far more expensive. of course a 8 CPU Itanium2 is expensive too. But comparing a bunch of (commodity) dual CPU boards with one 8 CPU box is not fair. It's the often found apple-and-oranges-comparison comparison.

    1. Re:US$6000/1000 for 4/8 CPUs by vincecate · · Score: 1
      Those offerings from Rocketcalc are dual Operon boards with orginary clustering. The only difference is, they put them in one case.
      Ouch. I did not realize that. Sun's 4-way has different cards that are connected together with hypertransport links and I thought these guys were doing the same thing in the backplane.

      I have seen a 4-way Opteron motherboard (I think it was Tyan) for about $1,000. Getting this, CPUs, etc would not be all that expensive. So the $6,000 price seemed plausible.

    2. Re:US$6000/1000 for 4/8 CPUs by sapbasisnerd · · Score: 1

      Also noted, the prices quoted on the Rocketcalc site are "starts at" prices someone wanna give a stab at what an actual usable config would cost?

    3. Re:US$6000/1000 for 4/8 CPUs by FueledByRamen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Last I checked, Tyan's 4way Opteron boards start at $1500 and change. And then you have to get the 8xx series processors. Not exactly cheap - $1250 for the Opteron 848, $855 for the 846 (or if you really have cash to blow, $1549 for the 850). And then you need some good registered ECC DDR400 RAM - $120 per 512 meg stick of Kingston, and I'd want to put several gigs in a machine like that... Plus incidentals like a huge case, really big fans and an even bigger power supply, and you're getting into some serious cash outlay - $8000+ for a 4x 848 with 4 GB of RAM.

      --
      Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
  10. Re:Sexium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAA HAa that's so funny! I've never heard that before!!!!

    *glare*

    You make your parents proud, don't you?

  11. Re:Sexium by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    Let's call it Cockroach, 'cause it just won't die ;-)

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  12. So Intel was right by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
    "[...]Intel had dreams of replacing high end x86 [...]Itanium has been repositioned to the multiprocessor server market."

    What else is and has been the domain of high end x86, if not the multiprocessor server market?

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  13. Playing catchup with Motorola/IBM? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this is a reaction to IBM's dual core G5 chips that will likely be appearing in Apple Xserve boxes early next year? (oh and motorola are doing dual core G4s too).

    I can't help thinking IBM will have the edge here, since Apple's business oriented G5 range is already all dual processor, and the current G5 acritecture is (to cut a long story short) a cut down version of the quad processor Power chip set to start with.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  14. New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by vincecate · · Score: 1
    The Itanium can scale up to 8, 16, 32 or even 64 processor modules ...
    A new chipset for 32-way opterons should be out by the end of the year. So yes, at the moment Itanium has retreated to multiprocessors where the only comperable Opteron system is the Cray XD1. But it won't be safe for long.
    1. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SGI is looking to expand the directory cache coherency domain on their architecture to at least 2048 CPUs. Even their current piddling 512 CPUs (each with double the FLOPS of an Opteron) literally blows the XD1 out of the water. Not to mention they'll be looking at probably 32 to 64 *TIMES* the amount of memory than the Opteron can even address...

      So witness the next generation Opteron (dual core) match Itanium 2 on floating point performance. Then unfortunately the 4 core next gen itanium architecture will be out.

      So, when you say "won't be safe for long", what exactly does that mean? I assume it is some reference to the Itanium 3 being around the corner, hence I2 isn't safe?

    2. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by vincecate · · Score: 1
      ... double the FLOPS of an Opteron ...
      The Aug 22, 2004 price for the fastest Itanium 2 available now is 1.50 GHz w/ 6M cache 400 MHz FSB (.13) $4,227. Look at SPEC-FP for 4 CPUs and see 82.2 for Itanium-2 1.5 Ghz/6MB by SGI. Also note 61.5 for Opteron 2.4 Ghz. Now AMD lists the 850 (2.4 Ghz for 8-way) at $1,514 though you can find it for a bit less. So Itanium here is 33% faster and nearly 3 times the price. But for peanuts compared to the price difference, you can do a bit of extra cooling on the 2.4 Ghz and overclock it at 2.6 Ghz, or 8% faster, so really Itanium is about 3 times the price and 25% faster on FP. Also note that Opteron is just above Itanium-2 1.5 Ghz/6MB on specInt without any overclocking.

      A couple months after AMD said they had taped out their dual core Opteron, Cray and others said they would be upgrading to that in 2005. Putting two Opterons next to each other with their hypertransports talking to each other is so easy that I suspect AMD's first silicon worked. I suspect dual-core Opterons will be in production way ahead of dual-core Itanics, since they are so much smaller. And we will see 8-core Opterons before we see 4-core Itanics. A number of people have working 8-way Opteron motherboards and I have not heard of anyone getting more than 2 Itanics on a motherboard. All the while AMD production volumes will be far higher than Itanic volumes.

      If SGI wants to stop loosing money, they should come out with an Opteron CPU-brick fast.

      "Won't be safe for long" means Itanic is sinking. Really.

    3. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude can you even read what I have been posting?? The Opteron *CANNOT PHYSICALLY ADDRESS 1/8TH THE AMOUNT OF MEMORY THAT THE BIG SGI SYSTEMS HAVE*

      Also, the itanium 2 has been out for years and it can't even be matched by the newly released Opteron in performance, so basically the Opteron isn't that great.

      But then again, you are talking about overclocking them and how easy the dual core Opterons must have been to make, so you must be some kind of leet hardware guru. Why aren't you working for AMD to single handedly make an 8 core Opteron?

    4. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, you should even redesign Opteron's memory architecture to allow greater than 40-bit physical addressing and support larger pages and the RAS features of Itanium 2. And then redesign its floating point unit to contain enough registers to be useful for high end scientific computing, and compete with I2 in performance.

      When you do that, SGI can use it and stop losing money.

      Then leave your head stuck in the sand so you don't have to face reality, just like you don't have to worry about all those 4 CPU itanium 2 motherboards out there.

    5. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by vincecate · · Score: 1
      Dude can you even read what I have been posting?? The Opteron *CANNOT PHYSICALLY ADDRESS 1/8TH THE AMOUNT OF MEMORY THAT THE BIG SGI SYSTEMS HAVE*
      You are clearly not reading mine. Earlier I wrote:
      1 TB is more than most people need this year, and next years Opterons could extend this.
      The registers are 64 bits but only 40 bits are really driving pins on memory at the moment. This will change in future chips.
    6. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errm OK, you said: If SGI wants to stop loosing money, they should come out with an Opteron CPU-brick fast.

      So, is that 'fast' as in "when next year's Opteron that, ahem, could extend this, comes out"? Or did you think SGI should cripple the FLOPS and memory capacity of their systems *today*?

    7. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by vincecate · · Score: 1

      The new hypertransport-2 has 64 bit addresses. So Opterons will clearly be going to 64-bit addresses at the system level, even if they each only have 40-bits of live address pins for their local memory. But if people get close to putting 1 TB per CPU, you can be sure they will put power on more address pins in future chips.

    8. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by vincecate · · Score: 1
      From Q1 2004 to Q2 Opteron server sales were up 81.1%.
      In addition, 64-bit-capable x86-64 servers continued to ramp in volume with server units based on AMD Opteron processors growing 81.1 percent sequentially in Q2.
      Itanic shipments are not going up like this. Opterons units/month are probably more than Itanic units/year at this point and Opteron is growing far faster. So if SGI wants to make money, switching to a CPU that people really like could help.
    9. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. Opterons CAN NOT ADDRESS more than 1TB. A 2-way Opteron system CAN NOT ADDRESS more than 1TB, a thousand-way Opteron system CAN NOT ADDRESS more than 1TB. Got it? Why the fuck do you think Cray's Opteron system does not ship with more than 1TB?

      And if you think hypertransport2 having 64-bit addresses means "Opterons will clearly be going to 64-bit addresses" then you are an even bigger idiot.

      Lastly, it isn't just a matter of "putting power on more address pins". The entire MMU and memory controller will have to be redesigned.

    10. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Opteron doesn't really compete with Itanium on the high end. Itanium2 has far more advanced RAS and enterprise features, and is a faster chip.

      Opteron competes squarely with the Xeon. And while AMD is definitely gaining there, Xeon still outsells it by huge amounts.

    11. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by vincecate · · Score: 1
      Opterons CAN NOT ADDRESS more than 1TB. A 2-way Opteron system CAN NOT ADDRESS more than 1TB, a thousand-way Opteron system CAN NOT ADDRESS more than 1TB. Got it?
      I have never said that the current Opteron or the current Hypertransport-1 does more than 40-bits of live external address. Internally the registers and code are 64 bit.
      And if you think hypertransport2 having 64-bit addresses means "Opterons will clearly be going to 64-bit addresses" then ...
      If they are using 64-bit addresses in the overall system, and could address a full 2^64 address space worth of memory with enough CPUs, what would you call it? Once they have Hypertransport-2 the large Opteron systems will be able to use as much memory as any SGI system.
      Lastly, it isn't just a matter of "putting power on more address pins". The entire MMU and memory controller will have to be redesigned.
      It depends on the initial design, but maybe it does take some touch up. I don't think there is any need for more than 1 TB of memory attached to each CPU for the next 10 to 15 years. So they should have plenty of time to work on it.
    12. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by vincecate · · Score: 1
      But Opteron doesn't really compete with Itanium on the high end. Itanium2 has far more advanced RAS and enterprise features, and is a faster chip.
      At the moment you can buy larger Itanium systems than current Opteron systems, so Itanium has retreated to the one place it currently beats Opteron. It might take a year or even two, but Opteron will get to large systems too.

      As for reliability, I don't agree that Itanium has an advantage. It is a huge chip, with many transistors, that runs hot, on a large module with many extra connections. This is not a recipe for reliability. It could get better at 90 nm or 65 nm.

      Also, you can buy twice the number of Opterons and do a Tandem style system with more reliability for the same money.

      Opteron competes squarely with the Xeon. And while AMD is definitely gaining there, Xeon still outsells it by huge amounts.
      I agree with this.
    13. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by vincecate · · Score: 1
      But Opteron doesn't really compete with Itanium on the high end.
      Opterons will be moving above 4-way to 8-way Opteron servers by the year end.
      The server can be equipped with up to 64GB of DDR (Double Data Rate) memory, two CD-ROM drives and eight Serial ATA hard-disk drives, according to Iwill.

      "This is a very cost-effective way of building a high-performance server," Lin said, adding that Iwill expects to see the eight-way Opteron server be competitive against more expensive servers based on Intel Corp.'s 64-bit Itanium 2 processor.

      Potential customers can obtain samples of the eight-way server now, and the server will be in volume production at the end of the year, Lin said.

    14. Re:New 32-way Opterons coming soon... by vincecate · · Score: 1
      Putting two Opterons next to each other with their hypertransports talking to each other is so easy that I suspect AMD's first silicon worked.
      Sure enough, AMD demoed dual-core Opterons on Aug 31st.

      Note that Intel has shown a wafer of dual-core Itanics but has not yet shown a working one. Surely they would rather have shown a working one if they could.

  15. Top 10 clues that Itanic will sink by vincecate · · Score: 1


    10) Compatibility mode is so slow people say it is non-compatible
    9) Sales can generously be described as "flat"
    8) Alpha development halted for years before Itanic caught up
    7) Microsoft calls AMD64 by the name x64
    6) Code-size is twice x64, so needs 2x cache and 2x memory bandwidth
    5) Fewer software tool vendors support it now than a year ago
    4) Even before Win-x64 is released, MS supports more products on x64
    3) Don't know anyone buying one, just someone who got one for free
    2) Marketing keeps telling people to buy the not-yet-released version
    1) People call it Itanic

    1. Re:Top 10 clues that Itanic will sink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10) Compatibility mode is so slow people say it is non-compatible

      Yeah it is pretty slow. Thankfully it is much faster than the Opteron where it counts.

      9) Sales can generously be described as "flat"

      If "flat" means "increasing", then yes.

      8) Alpha development halted for years before Itanic caught up

      And the Alpha development team is now working for Intel. Let's see what they've done with IA64 next year.

      7) Microsoft calls AMD64 by the name x64

      You smart computers good.

      6) Code-size is twice x64, so needs 2x cache and 2x memory bandwidth

      You do realise that code bandwidth and cache usage is usually orders of magnitude less than data bandwidth and cache usage?

      5) Fewer software tool vendors support it now than a year ago

      blah

      4) Even before Win-x64 is released, MS supports more products on x64

      The intersection of people who care about MS, and people who care about Itanium is unsurprisingly, probably quite small.

      3) Don't know anyone buying one, just someone who got one for free

      When did you last leave your parents' house?

      2) Marketing keeps telling people to buy the not-yet-released version

      Wha?

      1) People call it Itanic

      Clowns are funny.

    2. Re:Top 10 clues that Itanic will sink by vincecate · · Score: 1
      10) Compatibility mode is so slow people say it is non-compatible

      Yeah it is pretty slow.

      At least we can agree on something.
      8) Alpha development halted for years before Itanic caught up

      And the Alpha development team is now working for Intel. Let's see what they've done with IA64 next year.

      The magic of the Alpha team was in coming up with a great Instruction Set Architecture. Given how amazingly well the Xeon does against RISC chips it is clear that Intel has the ability to make good chips even with a not-so-good architecture. The AMD guys had it right when they got some of that team to help with the initial X86-64 architecture. Now that Itanium's architecture is set in stone I don't see a few guys from Alpha being able to do anything Intel could not already do (again Xeon shows Intel has talent).
      7) Microsoft calls AMD64 by the name x64

      You smart computers good.

      I can not make sense of that comment.
      6) Code-size is twice x64, so needs 2x cache and 2x memory bandwidth

      You do realise that code bandwidth and cache usage is usually orders of magnitude less than data bandwidth and cache usage?

      No, I don't think that is true (URLs please). Also, the same designers that thought code size did not matter designed their data formats. For example, they can not sign extend a 16-bit value to 64-bit, so you always have to have 64-bits. So like the code segments, Itanic's data segments are also often double the size of those for an AMD64.
      5) Fewer software tool vendors support it now than a year ago

      blah

      Really, in theregister they said:
      One notable tools vendor - Parametric Technology Corp. - pulled back its support for Itanium this year, and the Northrop Grumman customer said at least three other tools vendors, including Synopsys, have reneged on their support as well.
      This is a big clue.
      4) Even before Win-x64 is released, MS supports more products on x64

      The intersection of people who care about MS, and people who care about Itanium is unsurprisingly, probably quite small.

      The set of people who care about Itanium is quite small, so any intersection of this set with any other will be quite small.

      But we are talking about server things like Exchange Server, Commerce Server, Host Integration Server. Again, a big clue.

      3) Don't know anyone buying one, just someone who got one for free

      When did you last leave your parents' house?

      I own my own place on a tropical island in the caribbean, thank you very much. With a population of 12,000 here I know of only one person who owns an Itanic. He more or less got it for free from HP since he has a product that HP would like to see ported. With 100,000 sales in 2003, is seems like less than 1 Itanic per 2,000 people there, so I suspect others are in the same situation I am in. Do you know anyone who paid for one?
      2) Marketing keeps telling people to buy the not-yet-released version

      Wha?

      Intel keeps promoting the next chip. You have even done it in this thread where you say that the coming 1.7 Ghz 9MB chip will be fast. As long as this goes on people keep waiting for the coming stuff, and not buying the current stuff. It is a classic way high tech companies that get behind in the tech fail.

      Also note that 1.7 Ghz is not really much more than 1.5 that has been out for a year. In fact, AMD will probably increase clocks from 2.4 to 2.6 in the next couple months.

      1) People call it Itanic

      Clowns are funny.

      And sometimes the truth is funny too.
  16. Itanium and Opteron sales by vincecate · · Score: 1

    Here are some interesting numbers on Itanic and Opteron sales. Total Itanic system revenue was $319 mil in Q2, up from $287 in Q1 for 11% increase. Total servers at 5,665 in Q2 compared to 2,717 in 2003-Q2. Opteron servers total 60,000 and generated $191m in revenue, according to Gartner. Previously reported that Opteron increased by 81% from Q1 to Q2. This 60,000 compares to just 2,735 shipments and $8m in revenue in the same quarter last year. At this rate the dollars should be about equal in Q3, though many more Opterons since they are cheaper. After that Opteron should be way ahead.