Itanium

I think it is extremely interesting to see how Intel has responded to the threat of Opteron... Today, they launched a 1.0Ghz Itanium at $750 and a 1.4Ghz Itanium at $1100, both with 1.5MB cache... I think the latter is a serious powerhouse, regardless of its diminished cache... Not cheap, but certainly not the absurd $4200 for the 1.5Ghz Itanium!... This is the floating point god, remember...

I want to see a comparison of these new Itaniums and Opteron on server and workstation tasks! Am I the only one? :frown:

Also, who will cash out $4000+ for a 1.5Ghz, when you can get a 1.4Ghz for less than a third of that? Is cache that important?

I think Intel should have done that long ago. And I praise AMD for putting them in the position they are now - having to launch a cheaper Itanium and adding variety to their products.

:evil: <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
11 answers Last reply
More about itanium
  1. The same people who pay $3000 for a Xeon with 2 or 1MB of L3 cache instead of $800 for a Xeon of equivalent clockspeed but no L3 cache.
    Remember this is the enterprise market. Single-processor performance isn't as important as scalability, and for that, more cache helps significantly. I see no reason why people who'd want single or dual processor workstations based on Deerfield should need to opt for Madison, but those building 64-way Itanium-2 Superdomes would definitely appreciate the extra cache.

    "We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
  2. Meph HardOCP has article on OC dual Xeon's. 3.06 That's what they used in test. They got 3.3 ghz.
  3. Quote:
    Single-processor performance isn't as important as scalability, and for that, more cache helps significantly.

    Oh... didn't know that... Never heard that before... But the price scaling is a bit unusual... I guess it's silicon quality-rated...

    Anyway, workstations with Itanium-2s will probably become a tad bit more commonplace after supermicro releases their workstation itanium-2 mobos. They'll <A HREF="http://www.supermicro.com/PressEmp/Events/events.htm" target="_new">showcase</A> it in IDF... But anyway, that's a snail's pace...

    :evil: <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
  4. Now if only Intel would devise a mobo that'd house one Itanium and one Xeon and M$ would devise an OS that knew how to simultaneously use each effectively. That'd be freaky cool stuff.

    <pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>
  5. Shush dude youll ruine the surprise...

    -Jeremy

    :evil: <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6940439" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:
    :evil: <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1228088" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:
  6. i've seen the severs that the itaniums are put into, when the company is droping thousands of dollars on the memory and the servers cost like $60,000, I don't think they mind the price difference,
    and for my question, do both itaniums run at the same fsb?
  7. Yes, however, different companies probably use significantly different chipsets. SGI for example, uses a NUMA-like memory subsystem in their Altix Itanium systems while HP sticks with the more tranditional 4-way shared multidrop bus.

    "We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
  8. I think they knocked em down to dual channel 2100 from quad channel 2100.

    -Jeremy

    :evil: <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6940439" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:
    :evil: <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1228088" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:
  9. Yes, usually Itanium uses 4 channels of DDR200, but some mobos use only two channels... I saw that somewhere too, I guess.

    Anyway, as for Itanium's FSB, they all use 400Mhz (data) busses - as in 200Mhz DDR. That's why they only come in semi-integer multiples of 200Mhz - 1300, 1400, 1500Mhz... Because of being 64 bit CPUs, they can transfer 6.4GB/s - theoretically, as much as the P4Cs with their 800Mhz FSBs...

    I think Itanium will be ramped up next year for a 533Mhz FSB. A good indication of that is that Intel plans to introduce Madison "at speeds of" 1.6<b>7</b>Ghz and above; however, 1.67Ghz is not a semi-integer multiple of 200, but rather of 133Mhz... A 533Mhz 128-bit wide FSB on Itanium would transfer as much data as a P4 on a 1066Mhz bus (P4s use 64-bit-wide FSBs), if I'm not mistaken.

    :evil: <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
  10. The Itanium 2's FSB *is* 128-bits wide. It's currently operating at 200MHz *DDR*. I don't know of any other processor asside from the P4 that uses the Quad-Pumped Bus. Anyway. At 200MHz DDR, with 128-bit bus width, it theoretically provides the same throughput as the P4's 64-bit wide 200MHz quad-pumped bus.

    "We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
  11. Sorry... original post corrected...
    Itaniums use a DDR FSB... Thanks for pointing that out.

    :evil: <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Cache Opteron