Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Itanium

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 28, 2001 3:56:32 AM

Here a link direct from Intel's site..

ftp://download.intel.com/pressroom/images/news/dp83199x...

it's a really good pic of Itanium- which I'm sure your all aware of. The way this thing is designed is very strange. If the gold pins are supposed to go into a socket- it's going to require a TON of space on the Mobo.

-MP Jesse

More about : itanium

January 28, 2001 3:24:50 PM

I can't view TIF files.......
January 28, 2001 8:02:03 PM

That sucks. =) MS Image viewer should bring it up- brought mine up.

-MP Jesse
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 28, 2001 9:53:08 PM

can you maybe save it and convert it to .gif or .jpg or whatever and send it to my email? Grizely1@planetbattlezone.com
January 29, 2001 12:47:28 AM

LOL! I KNOW you can do that yourself.

-MP Jesse
January 29, 2001 1:16:47 AM

How can I if I can't even download it?!!?
January 29, 2001 7:57:15 PM

Hold down the shift key when you click the link, should get option to save to disk.
January 29, 2001 8:17:15 PM

Yeah I know but the URL he posted isn't a link...
January 30, 2001 10:50:46 AM

Thats way to small. It needs to be bigger!!! Maybe i'll buy it...NOT. I'll stick with my AMD's, cause they don't lie about performance and features. Yet another worthless product. THANK YOU INTEL!!

--SR
January 30, 2001 4:08:40 PM

Heh, its a real brain buster to copy/paste that into MS word or html editor.

poof you have a clickable link!
January 30, 2001 6:13:15 PM

Well, for those who don't want to spend forever downloading a nearly 3 meg TIF file (WHAT IS INTEL THINKING?!) here's the EXACT same image, only in JPG format. (Which compresses it nicely to a tiny little 78kb with JUST as excellent image quality.)

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/9759/dp83199x.jpg

I take no responsability for and damages that this picture may do to your hardware, software, or psyche. And it's still Intel's with all of the rights and privaleges thereof. I am merely providing a compressed version of it for easier downloading.

(How's that for a legal disclaimer?)

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
January 30, 2001 6:18:24 PM

Hello genius.

IT'S A SERVER CHIP!

So who cares how big it is because us desktop users will never be able to afford it anyway.

And it's only useless if it fails miserably at performing the abilities of a server chip. Since no one has tested one yet, no one can call it useless, worthless, garbage, junk, or anything else implying any negativity without displaying their obvious lack of impartiality.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
January 30, 2001 7:24:13 PM

Small? That thoing is like bigger than the pentium4 ! STUPID INTEL SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 30, 2001 7:38:45 PM

Does it matter?

It's meant to go into servers.

Servers sit back in dark little rooms where no one ever sees them until something goes wrong.

So who cares how big the chip inside of the case that no one ever sees is?

If Intel could procude a 3GHz chip that took up just as much space as a motherboard inside of my computer, forcing me to buy some new weird case that was twice as wide just to run a dual processor system, I'd buy it for a server without even giving it a second thought.

And this Itanium is a LOT smaller than that...

And did you have to go and use so many exclamation marks? Now the page is all screwed up.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
January 30, 2001 7:41:41 PM

Bigger chip = Bigger die = Bigger costs and Bigger heat output = Bigger cooling equipment needed.
January 30, 2001 7:47:32 PM

Yes, but:

Server = company with too much money already is paying for it.

So who cares how much it costs? You know that if it can perform, big (and even medium to small) companies will pay ten times what it's worth just to have it in their servers.

The companies that won't have the money for it are the ones that don't really need it in the first place because their servers just don't get that much attention.

Correct me if I'm wrong in any of this.

:) 

Yes, it sucks that it'll be out of reach for me to buy. But then I'm not a big company, so what do I really need with a server chip anyway?

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
January 30, 2001 7:48:59 PM

I could buy it but this summer I vowed to never buy anything from Intel again.
January 30, 2001 7:55:46 PM

That's an understandable vow, Intel's prices and the questionable value of the P4 considered. So at the moment I'm avoiding them for those reasons.

I've made a similar vow not to buy any VIA products until either hell freezes over or VIA gets bought out by someone that I respect.

It's too bad that this pretty much has left me with absolutely no new system to buy without causing myself a moral dillema.

Hopefully in a year or so that'll all be fixed.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2001 11:46:27 PM

I had a responsibility (and privilege) to port my company's server software to Itanium.

That's why I'm one of the few who really worked on the real Itanium boxes.

I've got some lectures from Intel on this matter as well.

One of the best clauses in Intel "IA64" book is -
"if our idea would be only to create 64-bit CPU, it would be done few years by now by adding 64-bit registers and new address modes." // this is not a quote

They also said that an idea to start "with a clean sheet of paper" without those x86-legacy weights on their legs brought another thing - yes, Intel could design yet another RISC CPU as we know them. But according to Intel, the gain, although measurable, was not high enough.

So they came up with something completely new.

It would be a mistake to evaluate all CPUs in terms of
Quake3 frames-per-second. After all, some people buy Sun servers - for some reasons :-)

The reason my company wants Itanium is VERY simple - we have to handle tens of GB of data, and having only some 2-3 GB of address space doesn't help in it.

So next time you'll beef up some 3+ GB of RAM into your box and you will consider an upgrade :-) - beware - 32-bit CPUs as P3, P4 and Athlon can handle only up to 4 GB, and OSes likely will limit this range even more to 2 GB, sometims - 3 GB.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 1:39:12 AM

NT Buddy,

I understand the advantages of 64 bit processors, I also use them. What were your impressions of the Itanium. I would have to say I am tremendously skeptical for a few reasons.
First that Windows 64 is involved.Windows NT/2000 is, and has always been like a bicycle tube made out of patches sooner or later...
I cant see how MS could compleatly divorce its self from its past. If Irix, Solaris, Linix,etc. are ported to Itantium that problem may be reduced.
Secondly why switch from established proven manufacturers, Mips, Sun, IBM and so on to to an unproven product that estamates say, will be more costly.
The people/companies intel is targeting to buy these thing are not as swayed by inflated Mhz. numbers as the general public seems to be.
On the posative side competition may result in better products all around.
Anim88tor
January 31, 2001 2:48:39 AM

damn that pic is almost 3megs!!!! convert it to jpg. or something

If you can't beat 'em kill 'em
athlon "SLOTA" thunderbird 700@1050mhz
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 5:26:58 AM

Me wants a SLEDGEHAMMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 31, 2001 3:07:51 PM

I need one too, so I can bash the head-in of the person who made this thread so unreadable.
January 31, 2001 3:26:12 PM

If you actually look through the posts, you'll notice that I did. Wake up and use your brain BEFORE using your mouth. That way even if you say nothing you'll still look more intelligent than you did before.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2001 6:19:30 PM

Anim88tor,

>>I understand the advantages of 64 bit processors, I also use them.

I used Alpha 21164 and 21264 some time ago, slightly - MIPS and Sun.
I worked on i860 and PA7100 as well.

>>What were your impressions of the Itanium.

It works! :-) It works in 1-way, 2-way and 4-way configurations. I saw them, I used them :-)
It so funny - processor is not released yet, while you are working on it.

I'm not asking that much by now - it's a preproduction systems after all,
some of them are even more - engineering samples. So I have a pity :-)

>>I would have to say I am tremendously skeptical for a few reasons.
>>First that Windows 64 is involved.

If you don't like Windows 64, there will be Linux and some major UNIXes as well.

>>Windows NT/2000 is, and has always been like a bicycle tube
>>made out of patches sooner or later...

Your words are much more applicable to Win3.x / Win9x / Win Me.
IMHO Microsoft sells this stuff (Win98 and WinMe) only to prove for masses
that MS software means [-peep-]. They should switch all and everyone to Windows 2000,
as it was intended when they renamed NT 5.0 to Win2000. Many sorrows would just go away.

I wrote many applications and participated in many server, distributed and
three-tier systems using NT 3.51, NT 4.0 and Windows 2000.

Believe me, you can use them to do a work :-)

>>I cant see how MS could compleatly divorce its self from its past.

I would like UNIXes to divorce from their past - after all, they are way older (30 years) than NT (7 years).

UNIXes have too many ugly things from the past
most people forgive for a single sake of reliability.
Some evangelists so used to this ugly 'heritage' that
they will never admit that it's ugly.

>>If Irix, Solaris, Linix,etc. are ported to Itantium that problem may be reduced.

First of all, there will be bunch of UNIXes, Linux included, for Itanium.
Secondly, Windows64 works for my development purposes right now.
May be they have a problem with some of their infinite 'technologies' -
so I would recommend them abandon their pointless featurism.

>>Secondly why switch from established proven manufacturers, Mips,

MIPS is dead - isn't it? Even SGI dropped them...
BTW I was never impressed by MIPS performance.

>>Sun, IBM and so on to to an unproven product that estamates say, will be more costly.

It's difficult to be more costly than the Sun :-)

All Wintel PPro-NT 3.5 servers and later capitalized on the fact that
Sun and likes are verrry expensive. And their software is expensive too.
That's why NT servers became abundant.

>>The people/companies intel is targeting to buy these thing are not
>>as swayed by inflated Mhz. numbers as the general public seems to be.

That's why if it will prove it's worth, people will use it.
After all, it's just business, not this evergreen PC vs Mac nonsense.

>>On the posative side competition may result in better products all around.

Truly indeed!!!
January 31, 2001 6:33:55 PM

Win2K is definately a better operating system than Windows has been in the past.

I've been using it at work and it has been rock solid and much better than every other MS Windows OS ever made... With one exception that really is more of an issue with VIA than it is with the software.

I would have to reccomend the upgrade to Win2k for anyone who is presently running Win9x or WinNT. The only complaints that I do have with it is that it's made the DOS command promt funky and that it's a memory/hard drive eating monster.

As for the Itanium, it sounds like the server chip that everyone has been wanting for years. :) 

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
January 31, 2001 7:04:29 PM

Well, GENIUS, FYI people have tested it. Maybe you should pay a little more attention to recent benchmarks on other websites. You know, not everything is on Tom's website. And, believe it or not GENIUS, board makers care about how much space a chip takes up. The more space it takes, the more engineering and money they have to spend. Another thing, GENIUS, a big CPU means a big heatsink- which will spiral the cost of a heatsink/fan. Got it, GENIUS?


-MP Jesse
January 31, 2001 7:24:45 PM

1) I really don't want to go into the whole thing again, but no one bloody gives a hoot about how much Itanium and it's supporting hardware will cost because it's a server chip and anyone who can't afford it won't be needing it in the first place. And anyone who does complain about the price really only proves that they are poor. Since poor people don't run servers, they simply don't count. :-p

2) I haven't gone searching for reviews on the Itanium because frankly it's more a curiosity to me than anything else since I KNOW I won't be able to afford it. I, as are many other people in this world, am poor. So I really don't NEED TO KNOW RIGHT THIS SECOND how well it performs. And besides, I never trust revies on engineering samples. I wait for the actual production unit, as any intelligent person who takes hardware seriously would.

3) I know I'm a genius. :)  And I'm sure so does everyone else. So you don't have to make it so obvious or else other people might start to get jealous. The last thing I need is to be a genius AND popular. Then I'd never have time for ANYTHING. :) 

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
January 31, 2001 7:46:29 PM

"I need one too, so I can bash the head-in of the person who made this thread so unreadable."

LOL! That was seroiusly funny. I wonder who it was that made this thread the way it is........ :wink:
January 31, 2001 8:28:48 PM

yeah, and you sure do look like a freak'n retard the way you quote ppl around here. :) 
January 31, 2001 8:39:49 PM

I quote things so freakin' retards like you know who I am replying to. Before I started everyone (including you) were like "I NEVER SAID THAT" and stuff. Just a little help for you people still in Grade 3. :smile:
January 31, 2001 10:39:44 PM

Its in a magical plastic house
:-)
February 1, 2001 2:54:16 AM

Well, when Sledgehammer and Itanium start competing you can guarantee that corporations are going to care about cost. And you can bet that AMD's solution to IA64 will be cheaper.

Look, my point to my last post was that you don't have to be such an ass to make a point. So quit with the sarcasim and insults.

-MP Jesse
February 1, 2001 3:07:19 PM

For about 50% of the server market, performance will be the ONLY issue. For another 30% of the server market, a balance of performance vs. price will be the issue. The remaining dinky 20% will be the only ones that really care about price. And those are the ones likely to be using dual P3-733s with IDE RAID or something similarly cheap but effective anyway, so they wouldn't be likely to consider either the Sledgehammer or the Itanium. Anyone can correct me if my figures are wrong.

Frankly, the server market is absolutely nothing like the PC desktop market. People don't care about price. They care about providing the highest possible bandwidth and speed to their users, end of story. At least this is according to a friend of mine who has worked as both a military and civilian network admin, which is where I get the majority of my information from regarding servers since he's dealt with just about everything under the sun. (No puns intended.)

And as for insults and sarcasm, if they hadn't been deserved I wouldn't have used them. :-p

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
February 1, 2001 7:36:28 PM

Quote:

At least this is according to a friend of mine who has worked as both a military and civilian network admin,

Not all companies have as much money as the military, don't forget.
February 2, 2001 7:34:30 PM

That's BS. I'm a technology consultant for the Dept. of Defense/Dept. of the Army. Each unit or division is given a budget to go buy- and now-a-days the budgets are VERY small. Servers and computers are low on the tree in terms of priority for the Army. That makes the budget EVEN smaller. Hell, half the damn military is still running on P166's from Gateway and Micron, and get this- they're all running WinNT 4. The military DOES care about the price of technology- and they go for the cheapest bidder. And the way it looks right now, Intel will not be the cheapest bidder.

-MP Jesse
!