Itanium Retreats To Multis, Opteron Presses Attack

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."

Comments

x64 vs x86?

[Ianoo]

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?

Re:x64 vs x86?

[brsmith4]

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.

Re:x64 vs x86?

[obeythefist]

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.

x86 code size advantage over Itanium

[vincecate]

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.

Intel attempts to move away from x86

[vincecate]

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.

Re:Intel attempts to move away from x86

[questionlp]

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.

Re:Xeon and Itanium will share the same bus

[questionlp]

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.

Re:Sexium

[Bastian]

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

Ready... FIGHT!

[Mr. Flibble]

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...

Itanium, Opteron related news...

[hoggoth]

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

US$6000/1000 for 4/8 CPUs

[hbackert]

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.

Re:US$6000/1000 for 4/8 CPUs

[FueledByRamen]

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.