Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Itanium: how do we benefit?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 17, 2002 7:22:37 PM

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?

More about : itanium benefit

March 17, 2002 7:30:56 PM

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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. =
March 17, 2002 7:47:29 PM

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>
Related resources
March 17, 2002 8:54:30 PM

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
Quote:
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
March 17, 2002 9:11:20 PM

Quote:
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."


Quote:
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. ;) 


Quote:
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. =
March 18, 2002 2:26:53 AM

Quote:
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!
March 18, 2002 2:28:25 AM

Quote:
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!
March 18, 2002 2:37:37 AM

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. =
March 18, 2002 3:48:44 AM

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
March 18, 2002 3:45:34 PM

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
March 19, 2002 1:36:37 AM

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

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
March 19, 2002 2:09:53 AM

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. =
March 19, 2002 6:57:50 AM

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.
March 19, 2002 2:30:59 PM

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



This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
March 19, 2002 7:28:01 PM

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

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 19, 2002 8:12:31 PM

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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. =
March 19, 2002 8:20:52 PM

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!
March 19, 2002 8:52:18 PM

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. =
March 19, 2002 9:03:38 PM

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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)

Quote:

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
March 19, 2002 9:10:08 PM

[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
March 19, 2002 9:14:15 PM

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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?


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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. =
March 19, 2002 9:48:33 PM

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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>
March 19, 2002 9:48:37 PM

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

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

Quote:
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!
March 19, 2002 10:14:29 PM

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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. =
March 19, 2002 10:16:06 PM

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

iib seems to care about price. He seems to think Itanium is overpriced. Compared to its competition it is about 10 times cheaper.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 20, 2002 1:24:30 AM

Ok I'll grant you that proof on the price it has, I can see it's much cheaper.
However I when I read of the Itanium, thought it would definitly rule.
I still would say other processors for companies who care none for money spending, would easily afford a cluster of other 64-bit processors, and get away with almost twice the performance.
Let alone the big heat and power consumption it has, plus a relatively weak bandwidth (who uses PC100 SDRAM anyway? That even costs more than PC133!), I simply would not buy one if I was major dealer. Part of this problem is, that even if it is a new architecture, I think Intel has a more respected name to advertise than just this low performance so far. They COULD have developped a better CPU. Sure McKinley will obviously have better components and will rule, but at what cost of us? We've seen what Itanium does, we're almost fearful Intel will do the same with the next comer. The point is, Itanium would've been better than that, and I think a lot will agree.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 20, 2002 2:59:48 AM

Quote:
plus a relatively weak bandwidth

At present, the current Itanium processor is an 800MHz chip, which features a 266MHz, 64-bit bus and 10 pipeline stages, for a total bandwidth of 2.1GB/s. It also has 32KB of L1 and 96KB L2 cache, both on-die, and 48MB of L3 cache.

In comparison, McKinley features a 400MHz, 128-bit-wide bus and 8 pipeline stages, for a total bandwidth of 6.4GB/s. I would hardly call this weak bandwidth.

-Raystonn



= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 20, 2002 8:48:49 AM

Ray a quick question regarding 32bit performance and Mckinley.
I am in a position where a number of my customers will be moving to new HP servers with IA64.
Currently they are running 32bit software (very large databases). In order to utilize 64bit they will need to upgrade the software as well. Now this will include very some very long database conversion times (still running in 32bit mode).
Due to down time constraints the hardware will have to be migrated first.
Hence they will have to run on the software in 32bit mode for a least a week before the upgrade can happen.
Does Mckinley still have the 32bit performance problems, as they cannot afford to have 15000+ users running at the 10th of the speed.
March 20, 2002 9:20:02 AM

I know the IA64 is very weak in 32-bit applications. How weak I would have to leave to those more knowledgable.

If your dead set on getting IA64, I would find a way to shorten down-time. Your other options include:

1. Waiting on AMDs Hammer. Many are guessing it will arrive late september of this year. It has 32bit and 64 bit application abillity. Its 64-bit power isnt near what IA64 can provide however. Its retro-compatibility with 32 bit apps makes it appealing for just your situation however.

2. Look at almost any hardware sites review of Itanium. They should give a clue on Itaniums 32-bit speed/ability.

3. Tell the people they will just have to live with slower apps until the migration is complete.

Im sure Ray has some clue on Itanium's 32-bit performance. Im sure what your after is some real world numbers however. ANybody know any? I am curious myself...

*************************************
Ray, I really wasnt trying to sling FUD with my post. I was thinking of any other area of life. If you buy something reported to do "X"... and you get it home and it doesnt do "X" very well, your gonna be upset. Upon returning the item, the salesperson says " Well, we got a new and better model in 6 months.. come back then". Most people, upon hearing that, would be pissed. Whether its computers, lawn-mowers, TVs or whatever.
I realize in the high-tech industry there is always something better around the corner. But considering Itanium requires a rather large up-front investment, people dont want to hear "come back later for something better". In the mean-time their stuck with 10,000$ worth of crap.
I also appreciate "you get what you pay for". I know Itanium is probably the cheapest solution for what it does (64 bit computing). But is that an excuse for doing what it does poorly? I dunno...


Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
March 20, 2002 9:34:38 AM

Unfortunatly I'm talking HPUX.
The only way we can see of doing this is to use the latest PA-RISC processors then when the upgrade is done, swap them out for the IA64s. However my customers are not very comfortable with this, plus of course HP would charg a nice hefty fee for this.
March 20, 2002 10:32:59 AM

The problem is, the SledgeHammer and the Itanium aren't compatible.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 20, 2002 2:54:46 PM

Ray, how do you get 2.1GB/s from PC100, though? I believe that was the question, rather than the bandwidth constraints inherent in the CPU itself.
Also, 6.4GB/s...32-bit RDRAM in dual-channel? I wouldn't mind.

8procstooslow, McKinley is supposed to perform 1.5-2x better <font color=red>per clock</font color=red> than Itanium, and that's in 64-bit mode (according to Ray and the Inquirer). The clock speeds will also be much higher.
Also, according to both Ray (faint hints), and someone who works for Intel here in Hillsboro who I shouldn't name (but would know), McKinley will be able to perform 32-bit functions quite a lot faster than Itanium, effectively removing that constraint as a hindrance in cases such as yours.

Texas_techie:
1. Hammer might not give the performance required (there's no way to know), and if it doesn't, he's stuck with it, or has to make this same choice again.

2. I haven't seen any Itanium benchmarks, but then again, I haven't been looking. Do you have any handy?

3. As he stated, that's not an option.

<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!
March 20, 2002 3:11:16 PM

Quote:
1. Waiting on AMDs Hammer. Many are guessing it will arrive late september of this year. It has 32bit and 64 bit application abillity. Its 64-bit power isnt near what IA64 can provide however. Its retro-compatibility with 32 bit apps makes it appealing for just your situation however.


I doubt Hammer will appear before the 4th quarter. In fact, It may end up not appearing in inventories/systems until early next year.

Yes, it appears AMD is on schedule or perhaps even a little ahead of schedul for their projected release LATE this year. However, they are probably no more than a month or so ahead of schedule and one or two small hard to solve problems could wipe that advantage out very quickly.

I'm hoping for a November release, but it's just a hope. I'm not counting on it in any way.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 20, 2002 3:41:24 PM

I just hope that they make darned sure that it is tested thoroughly before release.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
March 20, 2002 4:42:54 PM

Quote:
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.


<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/16030207.htm" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/16030207.htm&lt;/A>


You know, that looks like weak mp scaling to me ray.


Quote:
One processor completed the test in 19.18 seconds, two processors in 9.71 seconds, four processors in 9.57 seconds.

That gives the following results: One processor 115.45, two processors 84.26, four processors 77.56.

The scaleability isn't particularly good after two processors, is it?

Here's the big (750K) pic if you really want verification.


See the link for the pic. Poor scalability on a supposedly designed to scale processor.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
March 20, 2002 5:53:20 PM

That's for McKinley, which was not designed for the same application as Itanium.

McKinley has 6 ALUs? :eek: 
Ray, are these double-pumped like on the P4?

<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!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FatBurger on 03/20/02 11:55 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 20, 2002 6:06:20 PM

Mat the scalability often depends on the software running at the time.

As on the Athlon MP and Pentium XEON servers, if only one task is running at a time only one CPU will really get used. This is the case with all the multiprocessor systems I have read about.

So, 4 proc Itanium may have reflected lack of need to use 3 and 4 processor or something like that.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 20, 2002 7:22:48 PM

I just link to the articles, I didnt make the claim.


But I know that the app may have been the cause, however, the scalability that has been shown(and it was shown by intel mind you) was not impressive.



"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
March 20, 2002 7:52:44 PM

Quote:
Ray a quick question regarding 32bit performance and Mckinley.
I am in a position where a number of my customers will be moving to new HP servers with IA64.
Currently they are running 32bit software (very large databases). In order to utilize 64bit they will need to upgrade the software as well. Now this will include very some very long database conversion times (still running in 32bit mode).
Due to down time constraints the hardware will have to be migrated first.
Hence they will have to run on the software in 32bit mode for a least a week before the upgrade can happen.
Does Mckinley still have the 32bit performance problems, as they cannot afford to have 15000+ users running at the 10th of the speed.

32-bit performance has been improved along with 64-bit performance. I cannot say exactly how much of an improvement there is for 32-bit applications, as A) I have not seen one running a 32-bit application yet, and B) even if I had I might not be able to say anything yet. The public will have to wait and see. Samples will be released...

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 20, 2002 8:08:38 PM

Quote:
Ray, how do you get 2.1GB/s from PC100, though? I believe that was the question, rather than the bandwidth constraints inherent in the CPU itself.

There are a wide variety of chipsets on the table for the Itanium, for various memory technologies. For information on a chipset that supports PC100 SDRAM for up to 4.2GB/s of memory bandwidth (enough for two current generation Itanium processors), check <A HREF="http://developer.intel.com/design/itanium/downloads/248..." target="_new">here</A>.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 20, 2002 8:16:28 PM

Thanks, I'll have to email myself the link, since my Acrobat is screwed up here at work :frown:

<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!
March 20, 2002 8:36:48 PM

The plugin always gets everything messed up. It never works correctly. I suggest saving the pdf to a file and double-clicking the file.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 20, 2002 9:11:15 PM

Funny thing is, it used to work, it just suddenly stopped. Such is life, I guess. I really need to reformat anyway, but I don't want to go through that much effort on my work PC.

<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!
March 20, 2002 11:21:16 PM

http://www.theregus.com/content/3/24150.html

Little talk about incoming mckinley also know as mcmonster at the inquirer and the beast at the register.Slow some say.Even benchmark this time

((( That's the problem with server demos - running gazillions of transactions in the background does not make for compelling onstage visuals. But do not let that stand in the way of IBM, which yesterday show off a McKinley beast working with an new new Xeon P4 server box. The demo featured a simulated ecommerce benchmark in action, called ECPerf, and it was, we were informed, suitably blindingly fast.

It is clear though, that Intel, has - at last - with McKinley some serious armoury in its assault on the proprietary Unix server market. Three trends in the server market are all swinging the pendulum more and more in Intel's direction, according to the Fister worldview. ))))





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