Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM to Drop Itanium

Posted by Zonk on from the xeon-chips-have-the-power dept.

Hack Jandy writes "Xbitlabs is reporting that IBM chose not to persue Itanium in their next generation server lineup because of the "market acceptance issues" of the platform. They will still continue with new revisions of Xeon servers, however. With IBM's investments in Power, I can't help but think the writing was already on the wall. The article also hints that IBM might start using Power in their high end server products."

11 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. From the summary: by Noose+For+A+Neck · · Score: 5, Informative
    "The article also hints that IBM might start using Power in their high end server products."

    What? IBM already uses POWER in it's high-end server products. What do you think they develop it for, anyway?

    --

    Software piracy is victimless theft.

    1. Re:From the summary: by superpulpsicle · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.llnl.gov/computing/tutorials/ibm_sp/

      Here's a link to the history of IBM's processors POWER. This is one of the best sites out there IMHO, and it still seems mighty confusing.

      IBM never had a good history of marketing their processors like Intel and AMD. They fight competition with raw numbers.

    2. Re:From the summary: by Henriok · · Score: 3, Informative

      What? IBM already uses POWER in it's high-end server products. What do you think they develop it for, anyway?

      No they don't!
      the pSeries and iSeries isn't considered "high end" by IBM, they are considred low end and midrange servers. The high end is the zSeries and they doesn't use POWER/PowerPC processors just yes. Word has it that the future POWER6 processor will converge the three server lines on one processor platform. The eClipz project is tied very closely to this. "e" as in eServer, "l" as in Linux, "i" as in iSeries, "p" as in pSeries and "z" as in zSeries will.. eclips the Sun.

      --

      - Henrik

      - when the Shadows descend -
  2. Re:Cell ? by Harry+Balls · · Score: 2, Informative
    Cell is very fast, but only has single precision floating point, i.e. it will not qualify for scientific applications, which demand double precision.

    Cell is going to be great for gaming and rendering and such, but you won't see scientific applications running on it any time soon.

    --
    Dedicated Linux servers (root access) $45 p.M.
  3. Not accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    TFA and moreso the summary and headline is not fully accurate according to what I've heard.

    What IBM has decided not to do is support the Montecito IA64 chips. Apparently Intel initially approached IBM about licensing the X3 technology for an chipset to support Montecito, IBM agreed and shut down their own program to develop a chipset and redeployed the resources, Intel came back a few weeks later and said they had changed their mind, would IBM build an X3 chipset for Montecito but by this point they had also announced that the next post-Montecito Itanium chip would be plug compatible with Xeon. Hence the market opportunity for Montecito is about 18 months so it's not worth IBM's effort to build a chipset for only that time.

    IBM has therefore decided to continue to sell the existing x455 servers through this year, skip Montecito and support Itanium again with X3 when it becomes plug compatible with Xeon. That means that for about a year they will have no server that will support Itanium.

    Two years is a long time in this business so who knows if anyone outside of the HP/UX install base will care about Itanium by then but IBM does have a plan for continued IA64 support if current trends continue.

    This is not good news for Itanium but it's also not a complete cancellation.

    1. Re:Not accurate by raxx7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Second option: a future Xeon and a future Itanium will be using the same chipsets -- Common System Infrastructure.
      Orginally, it was planned to 2007 but it might show up earlier.

  4. Gee, reminds me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...of the IAPX-432 debacle. (And if you don't know what that is, google it. It was the Itanic LONG before the name Itanic was cool.)

  5. Re:AMD64 by mczak · · Score: 3, Informative
    In what way exactly?
    I suspect the parent poster is refering to the IOMMU of the Athlon64/Opteron chips, which intels EMT64 chips lack. This might have consequences for some PCI (or other I/O) devices, the OS might need to use copy buffers if those devices want to do dma transfers to/from address space above 4GB.
  6. Re:Getting leaner, IBM? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    IBM sold CHRP or PREP-compliant (I forget which) PowerPC boards. Few people/companies bought them. There was simply not sufficient interest to get the prices down to the point where it was worth it. You know, kind of like itanic. Holding on a little longer might have made it happen, but then PPC support was dropped from Windows. It's all speculation at this point, though...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Re:AMD64 by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2, Informative

    intel did not design it from the ground up. They copied AMD's spec and tried to graft it onto a P4. They did not do a great job. Anybody who tells you that intel designed it from the ground up is just plain wrong

  8. Re:Stop your lies. by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey dipshit, someone should teach you the difference between EPIC (Intel's IA64 instruction set) and EM64T, which is the kludge they strapped onto an overheated overpriced Pentium 4 (Called a Xeon). That is a bloody fact. Nobody was talking about Itanium. In fact, next to nobody is BUYING Itanium. This is why intel had to eat some of its own lunch and make a 64bit Xeon line. Go flame yourself, you crybaby.