Itanium: how do we benefit?

[digikid]

I am wondering about the improvements brought to computing by 64 bit processors. Is it true that software has to be specifically written for this architecture in order to properly take advantage of it? Is this why AMD is making the Hammer chip, so that we can keep on using our old stuff, as well as new software as it comes out?

Also, what are the real benefits of a 64 bit chip? My use of a computer is mostly for scientific, CPU-intensive computing, and people in my field are testing the Itaniums and not finding any real speed improvements using it.

Last question: why is the Itanium running at only 800MHz? Can't they use the same technology that they use in the P4s, and get it running at 2.2GHz, or so?

 

[Raystonn]

Is it true that software has to be specifically written for this architecture in order to properly take advantage of it?

You must use an IA64 compiler, such as the one currently available from Intel. You must also keep in mind that integers are now 64-bits, etc.

Is this why AMD is making the Hammer chip, so that we can keep on using our old stuff, as well as new software as it comes out?

Look at the Hammer more for whatever it can do in 32-bit applications. The 64-bit extensions are more for the marketing department to wave around the "64-bit" flag.

Also, what are the real benefits of a 64 bit chip? My use of a computer is mostly for scientific, CPU-intensive computing,

The Itanium includes a whole new, optimized, instruction set, as well as access to 17,179,869,184 GB of memory.

people in my field are testing the Itaniums and not finding any real speed improvements using it.

The McKinley will be about twice as fast per clock as the original Itanium. The clockspeed is also being ramped up.

why is the Itanium running at only 800MHz? Can't they use the same technology that they use in the P4s, and get it running at 2.2GHz, or so?

Eventually it will run at these speeds. Processors with a higher IPC are much more difficult to scale in frequency. According to the Hammer specifications that have been released, the Itanium performs much more work per clock (has a higher IPC) than the Hammer in 64-bit applications. The Hammer's main design goal is the ability to run old x86 32-bit applications quickly.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[IIB]

Itanium doesnt give anything to "us"... we are PC users - Itanium is for entiprise markets... the benifits of 64bit are 64bit wide registers (alot more width to work with inside the processor) 64bit memory adressing (you can work with more then 4GB of memory - which is a need for some applications) and 64bit ALUs (you can do arithmtics with much bigger numbers - 2 in the 64th power bits - big).

aside from that the microarchitecture of the Itanium is way diffrent then your avreage Athlon or P4 (not even the same type of computing type)... but these CPUs are not its competitors...

Itanium has its own instruction set called EPIC - thus it cant really use all of todays pc software which is bassed on x86..

in the Itanium arena there are many 64bit processors... 64bit is just way over-hyped by Intel (and AMD) for the press to eat and tell us all that the "64bit age is comming"...

some 64bit processors avilable today:
include EV4, EV45, EV5, EV56,EV6, EV67, EV68, R4000, R4400, R4600, R4700, R5000, R10k, R12k, R14k,US-I, US-II, US-IIi, US-III, PA-8000, PA-8200, PA-8500, PA-8600, PA-8700, RS64, RS64-II, and POWER4.
Just to name a few.

each of these processors also has its own native instruction set - dont know why Intel seems to think that Itanium, from all others, is the one to bring 64bit to your basic server/workstations... and make them switch from x86 to EPIC...

with some (alot) of the above out-preforming Itanium...

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by iib on 03/17/02 11:49 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[SammyBoy]

Actually, I think the figure I've heard thrown around is that the McKinley 1GHz will be about 35% faster than the Itanium 800MHz The math might be off, but that's what I've read <A HREF="http://freespace.virgin.net/m.warner/RoadmapQ202.htm" target="_new">here</A>. Just scroll down a bit, and you'll see the McKinley entry. Not quite double... but any improvement over the current core would be good.

But, as too the Itanium, it was a good idea, but took way too long to get to market, which meant that other 64-bit processors had caught up to the "revolutionary" Itanium. So in the end, it came out too late and too expensive. Granted, it has MS OS support, but that doesn't seem to have helped sales too much.

BTW, Ray, what does it mean when it's said that

The processor itself will be housed in a cartridge containing an integrated PSU.

Is that referring to a Power Supply Unit, or some other type of PSU?

-SammyBoy

 

[Raystonn]

Actually, I think the figure I've heard thrown around is that the McKinley 1GHz will be about 35% faster than the Itanium 800MHz The math might be off, but that's what I've read here.

It will be about twice as fast. In fact, your link says: "The performance of a 1Ghz part is expected to be around 1.7 times that of an 800Mhz Itanium, making McKinley approximately 35% faster per clock cycle."

But, as too the Itanium, it was a good idea, but took way too long to get to market, which meant that other 64-bit processors had caught up to the "revolutionary" Itanium.

It did take too long to get out. The McKinley will help make up for that. There are already at least three more codenames for further IA64 processors to come, past the McKinley. It will only get better and better.

BTW, Ray, what does it mean when it's said that: The processor itself will be housed in a cartridge containing an integrated PSU.

I know of no other meaning for PSU in this context than "Power Supply Unit."

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[Matisaro]

Look at the Hammer more for whatever it can do in 32-bit applications. The 64-bit extensions are more for the marketing department to wave around the "64-bit" flag.

And the estimated 30% performance boost from 64 bit is a marketing ploy as well, huh ray.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

 

[Matisaro]

It will be about twice as fast. In fact, your link says: "The performance of a 1Ghz part is expected to be around 1.7 times that of an 800Mhz Itanium, making McKinley approximately 35% faster per clock cycle."

Which is only 35% faster, not twice as fast.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

 

[Raystonn]

Oh and by the way, SammyBoy, just because the article's author estimates the McKinley to have 1.7 times more performance (a 70% improvement), this does not mean he is correct. My own estimates are closer to an actual doubling in performance (a 100% improvement.) It might just be for the applications I saw though.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[juin]

The inquirer say that it range from 50% to 100 % faster.With a L1 cache of 1 clock lantency.

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie

 

[IIB]

Itainum2 (dunnu how to spell mac... whatever) has an instruction Cahce of zero cycle latncy.
the L1 L2 and L3 are all above 1 cycle latncy (3 for L1 11 for L3 I think)..


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled

 

[juin]

Little question for you what is I870?? (chipset)

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie

 

[Raystonn]

Well, it is a chipset for the Itanium. I assume you want to know more than this. Have you tried searching on <A HREF="http://www.yahoo.com" target="_new">Yahoo</A>? I managed to find <A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/21258.html" target="_new">this</A> information doing a simple search. If you have any questions that are not answered with a search, let me know and I will see if I can answer them.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[texas_techie]

In essence, what Ray is saying is:

Sorry about the thousands you spent on the Itanium. But hey, cheer up... in a little bit you'll be able to spend more money for a McKinley.

** I realize getting a radically different architecture (itanium) to high speed is difficult. However, saying McKinnley will improve things doesnt help those already invested in Itanium. That isnt intended as a dig on you Ray. But if I were in that guy's shoes, reading your comments wouldnt reassure me. Is there something he can do to improve Intanium's performance? Some way to tweak the speeds he thought he would get?

Exhibit A:
"people in my field are testing the Itaniums and not finding any real speed improvements using it."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The McKinley will be about twice as fast per clock as the original Itanium. The clockspeed is also being ramped up.



Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

 

[IIB]

somone invested in Itanium?
no... not really...



This post is best viewed with common sense enabled

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

"Itanium: how do we benefit? "
You don't.

ahh that was easy. next!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>

 

[eden]

Ya, that was pretty much my answer in first...!
What's done is done.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

 

[Raystonn]

In essence, what Ray is saying is:

Sorry about the thousands you spent on the Itanium. But hey, cheer up... in a little bit you'll be able to spend more money for a McKinley.

He never claimed to have purchased an Itanium. He made reference to people in his field doing so.

saying McKinnley will improve things doesnt help those already invested in Itanium.

Those who invested in Itanium are generally not worried about the cost of the system. They just want performance and an architecture guaranteed to be improved upon and maintained for years to come. Do you realize how much cheaper an Itanium is compared to all the other 64-bit processors on the market? You can easily purchase more of them to improve performance and still pay less than you would for a different processor. Add to that the fact that other processors would lock you into an architecture and instruction set that is not going to be enhanced anywhere near as quickly as IA64, and you begin to see the benefit IA64 truly offers.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[FatBurger]

Speaking of which, do you happen to have costs for Itanium's competition? I've never seen anything like that.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!

 

[Raystonn]

Sun Enterprise 6500 system with 24 processors and 48GB of RAM: $775,000
(Processors and memory are proprietary and require Sun's proprietary OS.)

24 Itanium processors: about $70,000
48GB of industry-standard SDRAM: about $8800

Slight difference in price, no?

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[IIB]

Those who invested in Itanium are generally not worried about the cost of the system.

thats must be the BS of BS.
why would you buy Itanium if say another processor offers more or equal preformance at lower price?
dont be mistaken - preformance wize there are things Stronger then Itanium. (which unlike itanic have Software support)
so if your REALLY not troubled with cost - you wouldnt get an Itanium.

btw - what company on earth isnt troubled with cost...?

[qoute]
They just want performance and an architecture guaranteed to be improved upon and maintained for years to come
[/qoute]
did you know that with each new IA64 member - you Have to recompile all your software in order for it to work at max speed?

Do you realize how much cheaper an Itanium is compared to all the other 64-bit processors on the market?

why wont you give us some numbers on that ray?
I find it very hard to belive sence itanics die is larger then most other 64bit processors out there...

You can easily purchase more of them to improve performance and still pay less than you would for a different processor

diffrent processor? you mean - a NW2.2 or an AXP 2100 - they out-preforme Itanium - with 5th the cost... hummm
hey Fat Burger has an Itanium Killer under the hood ? Cool ain't it?

You can easily purchase more of them to improve performance

no you cant - Itanium has a VERY weak Multi-processor configration - its not even glueless MP (athlon MP anyone) and forget about Bus-to-Bus protocols or anything neat like that (EV7, Hammer) no snoping no nothing.
Itaniums on the same bord actually SHARE the same Bus all toghter (that would be powerd by a mighty single Channel PC1700 or 100mhz Sdr-Sdram).

Add to that the fact that other processors would lock you into an architecture and instruction set that is not going to be enhanced anywhere near as quickly as IA64

we'll see about that... IA64 - is VLIW (Very Long Int Word) - it's a type of computing that has been known for as long as RiSC and SiSC.
Intel is not reenventing much here... it would be as Hard to make VLIW Fater and more powerfull as it is for RiSC and SiSC (well today SiSC is powered by a RiSC like exceution engine anyway - after instructions get decoded to the lowest level).

no one took VLIW searuisly except Intel... Really... (and im talking SGI, SUN, IBM, Digital, - the companys that DO make the Fastest processors)

and you begin to see the benefit IA64 truly offers
[/qoute]
where?

all things aside - you still don't think there is any REAL REASON no one bought Itanium? even those companys how "dont care about cost". when you say "Those who invested in Itanium" can you really give us Names of companys who - invested in itanium - ?

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled

 

[IIB]

[qoute]
Sun Enterprise 6500 system with 24 processors and 48GB of RAM: $775,000
[/qoute]

that might include - Software and support... software for these things cost Thousnds of dollars (for instance a "simple" program like borland delphi entiprse editon 0 costs 11,000 USD).


[qoute]
24 Itanium processors: about $70,000
48GB of industry-standard SDRAM: about $8800
[qoute]
why get an itanium? get a 2.2 Xeon processors - beats the hell out of Itanium as an MP system... with 3rd the cost - and it has - software.




This post is best viewed with common sense enabled

 

[Raystonn]

thats must be the BS of BS.

No, that is the truth. Those who purchase these kinds of systems generally spend millions on such computer systems.

why would you buy Itanium if say another processor offers more or equal preformance at lower price?

Name one that can do the job. For the market that Itanium targets, noone beats its price / performance ratio.

dont be mistaken - preformance wize there are things Stronger then Itanium.

Sure, if you want to pay 10 times as much. Now use that money you have left over in your budget after buying an Itanium system to buy more processors and the Itanium system will win.

did you know that with each new IA64 member - you Have to recompile all your software in order for it to work at max speed?

This is a complete lie. IA64 is IA64. No recompilation is needed to run Itanium-built software on a McKinley. This is like saying you must recompile your Pentium-built software to use it on a Pentium 4 or Athlon. Do you actually believe this line of FUD?

why wont you give us some numbers on that ray?
I find it very hard to belive sence itaniums die is larger then most other 64bit processors out there...

I did above. Intel has economy of scale. We are the world's largest and most experienced CPU manufacturer.

diffrent processor? you mean - a NW2.2 or an AXP 2100 - they out-preforme Itanium - with 5th the cost... hummm

This is not even the same class of processor here, and certainly does not address the same market. Desktop processors are not capable of working in such massively parallel systems as is required. They are optimized for single processor systems. Not only that, but they cannot address nearly enough memory to be useful in this market.

no you cant - Itanium has a VERY weak Multi-processor configration - its not even glueless MP (athlon MP anyone) and forget about Bus-to-Bus protocols or anything neat like that (EV7, Hammer) no snoping no nothing.

You apparently know absolutely nothing about the Itanium. It would be wise to stop commenting on it as if you do.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

 

[IIB]

Name one that can do the job. For the market that Itanium targets

give me an answer to which markets itanium targets.
and i'll gove you an answer to which does a better job...

This is a complete lie. IA64 is IA64. No recompilation is needed to run Itanium-built software on a McKinley. This is like saying you must recompile your Pentium-built software to use it on a Pentium 4 or Athlon. Do you actually believe this line of FUD

I did not say it's NEEDED to recompile.
but to get the most out of the new processor you would need to recompile - thats the way EPIC works - it does all code optimzation at compiling time - this include work load ballancing on the processor ILP and all sort of optimization which have to do with the processors architecture - so once you change the architecture you would benefit from a diffrent work-load stress (Cache utiliztion for one - if you change the amont of Cache you would like to benefit from blancing cahce loads diffrently). or if you a place more excecution units - you'll want work-loads to contain more ILP to use those units.

the fact that you'll need to recompile (to get maximum prefomance) for new IA64 members is very well-known - and there is no point arguing about it...

This is not even the same class of processor here, and certainly does not address the same market. Desktop processors are not capable of working in such massively parallel systems as is required.

yes they can... any processor you can cluster (like athlons) can give you the parallelizm you require. just a few months ago a 128 (or somthing like that) processors Athlon XP bassed system entered the top 500 super-computer list...

most processors actually cluster better the Itanium given its poor multi-processor capbiltys...

You apparently know absolutely nothing about the Itanium. It would be wise to stop commenting on it as if you do.

as it seems, I know more then you - check you facts. the Itanium has a weak multi-processoe capbiltys - it does share the same bus - its not glueless (like Athlon MP and many other processors) - and it does not support new aproches to SMP like bus-to-but connections and the abilty to "snoop" another processors bus for instructions (like Hammer and the alpha EV7 ). - and that point isnt getting better with Itanium.

and again I ask you - do you realy think there is no REAL REASON why Itanium was such a poor comercial product?

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by iib on 03/20/02 01:52 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[FatBurger]

Why are you toting the price/performance ratio to people you said yourself care nothing of cost?

Those who invested in Itanium are generally not worried about the cost of the system.

For the market that Itanium targets, noone beats its price / performance ratio.

I realize you said "generally", but still.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!

 

[Raystonn]

the fact that you'll need to recompile (to get maximum prefomance)

This is true of all new processors. If you want the benefit of optimizations for the Pentium 4's pipeline, you need to recompile your applications with a compiler that knows about the Pentium 4. This is nothing new to the Itanium.

most processors actually cluster better the Itanium given its poor multi-processor capbiltys...

Just where do you get your information? The Itanium has no problem in multiprocessing systems.

do you realy think there is no REAL REASON why Itanium was such a poor comercial product?

The real reasons are twofold. First, it was a totally new architecture. Moving people from one instruction set to another is difficult and takes time. People are generally resistant to change. Second, it was late and everyone knew the McKinley was coming very soon. Most IA64 converts are waiting for the McKinley.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =