Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Launches New 2 Billion Transistor Itanium

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 40 comments

It's the Intel processor for critical missions.

Running a mission-critical… mission? Intel this week introduced the Itanium processor 9300 series, previously codenamed "Tukwila," which delivers more than double the performance of its predecessor.

Helping boost performance in this two-billion transistor Itanium processor 9300 series is that it has twice as many cores as its predecessor (four versus two), eight threads per processor (through enhanced Hyper-Threading Technology), more cache, up to 800 percent the interconnect bandwidth, up to 500 percent the memory bandwidth, and up to 700 percent the memory capacity using-industry standard DDR3 components.

The processor's advanced machine-check architecture coordinates error handling across the hardware, firmware and operating system, and improves system availability by enabling recovery from otherwise fatal errors.

The Itanium 9300 processor employs the second generation of Intel Virtualization Technology to improve performance and robustness. Its Intel 7500 chipset can directly assign I/O devices to virtual machines, further boosting efficiency.

"Intel is committed to delivering a new era of mission-critical computing, and we are delighted 80 percent of Global 100 companies have chosen Itanium-based servers for their most demanding workloads," said Kirk Skaugen, vice president Intel Architecture Group and general manager Data Center Group. "Intel is continuing to drive the economics of Moore's Law into mission-critical computing with today's Itanium 9300 processor announcement, more than doubling performance for our customers once again."

Don't expect this to be something that you'd have at home to run Crysis, however, as the Itanium processor 9300 series ranges in price from $946 to $3,838 in quantities of 1,000.

Display 40 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 21 Hide
    ben850 , February 10, 2010 9:17 PM
    "Don't expect this to be something that you'd have at home to run Crysis, "

    there you go guys.. don't even ask! :p 
  • 11 Hide
    necronic , February 10, 2010 9:15 PM
    Cool beans. Now if I can just convince my boss that we need to build a supercomputer for our pid controller. :) 
  • 11 Hide
    Anonymous , February 10, 2010 9:20 PM
    So, a decade later, Intel still hopes to raise the Itanic.
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2339629,00.asp
Other Comments
  • 11 Hide
    necronic , February 10, 2010 9:15 PM
    Cool beans. Now if I can just convince my boss that we need to build a supercomputer for our pid controller. :) 
  • 21 Hide
    ben850 , February 10, 2010 9:17 PM
    "Don't expect this to be something that you'd have at home to run Crysis, "

    there you go guys.. don't even ask! :p 
  • 11 Hide
    Anonymous , February 10, 2010 9:20 PM
    So, a decade later, Intel still hopes to raise the Itanic.
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2339629,00.asp
  • 6 Hide
    endorphines , February 10, 2010 9:21 PM
    @ nachochease, quoting in quantities of 1000 is the industry standard. if you look on intel's site even e5200's are quoted in quantities of 1000
  • 6 Hide
    necronic , February 10, 2010 9:22 PM
    ben850"Don't expect this to be something that you'd have at home to run Crysis, "there you go guys.. don't even ask!


    Dumb question in this case anyways. Here's a good one:

    But can it play Dwarf Fortress?
  • -4 Hide
    megamanx00 , February 10, 2010 9:35 PM
    I'm surprised they are still pushing Itanium which would compete in the same space as their Xeon Processors.
  • 0 Hide
    JohnnyLucky , February 10, 2010 9:55 PM
    The numbers are beyond my imagination.
  • -4 Hide
    ubernoobie , February 10, 2010 9:58 PM
    can this play runescape?
  • 0 Hide
    nforce4max , February 10, 2010 10:11 PM
    Hmmmm I wonder how these handle CAD as well Arc Map9?
  • 2 Hide
    Marco925 , February 10, 2010 10:14 PM
    I Didn't know this architecture was still alive.
  • 9 Hide
    belardo , February 10, 2010 10:19 PM
    Back when AMD came out with the 64bit Opteron CPUS (intel didn't have any 64bit other than Itanium), they started gobbling up server market share. One of these things that made Opteron sucessful was that it was far cheaper than Itanium and faster too. Also, programmers who know x86 didn't have to deal with the complex issues of IA64.

    So how do these $4000 CPUs compare to Opterons and Xeons?
  • 2 Hide
    njkid3 , February 10, 2010 10:37 PM
    i thought that the itanium program was for the most part a done deal.
  • 3 Hide
    jimmysmitty , February 10, 2010 11:03 PM
    BelardoBack when AMD came out with the 64bit Opteron CPUS (intel didn't have any 64bit other than Itanium), they started gobbling up server market share. One of these things that made Opteron sucessful was that it was far cheaper than Itanium and faster too. Also, programmers who know x86 didn't have to deal with the complex issues of IA64.So how do these $4000 CPUs compare to Opterons and Xeons?


    Not entirely. IA64 was made for 64bit and in pure 64bit is faster. x86-64 was cheaper in the solution that it ran x86 in a pure form while Itanium only runs x86 in a emulated mode and thus its x86 is slower.

    But if you need a true 64bit super server, Itanium is the way to go hence why it has been around since its release in 2001.
  • -4 Hide
    eklipz330 , February 10, 2010 11:16 PM
    Quote:
    Don't expect this to be something that you'd have at home to run Crysis, however, as the Itanium processor 9300 series ranges in price from $946 to $3,838 in quantities of 1,000.


    Hmm.... 1,000 processors for $4,000....
  • 1 Hide
    Shadow703793 , February 10, 2010 11:16 PM
    ronch79I don't see why companies would use Itanium when they can, for the same price, get a system with several Xeons or Opterons with similar performance but easier programmability.

    Because they already have programs optimized for the IA64 (and IA64 != x86-64).
  • -5 Hide
    andy5174 , February 11, 2010 12:04 AM
    Can I have it for free.......? ^^
  • 4 Hide
    agnickolov , February 11, 2010 12:13 AM
    I really don't get where the myth about being easier to program for x86 comes from. Even in the lowest level code (OS and drivers), only a small fraction of the code is actually written in assembly language. Everything else is written in C and higher level languages (personally I'm a C++ developer). The effects of the underlying machine architecture are hidden from the programmer by the language compiler (and I won't even mention interpreted languages...).
Display more comments