That was an interesting article. It would be nice to see PCs move away from X86 but I don't how they can. X86 is an entity in itself and will be very difficult to displace. I think Intel needs to integrate IPF with X86 on the same core so as to enable backword compatibility during the transition. However, I don't know enough about computers to know if this is even possible, and I'm sure it would be a very large die.
Listen to me now and forget me tomorrow
Listen to me now and forget me tomorrow
Very interesting article. By his logic, it starts to become cost-effective to replace x86 with IA64 once the 90nm node is reached (which will be later this year). Also found it interesting that he asserts IA64 performance will increase much faster than x86 performance:
======================================================
In terms of addressing the desktop class form factor, the 0.13 µm Madison/Deerfield [15] version of Itanium 2 can reportedly operate at 1.3 GHz while keeping maximum power dissipation comparable to a 2.66 GHz Northwood Pentium 4. In this scenario the IPF processor would provide roughly 10% higher integer performance and about twice the floating point performance for native applications. Advances in compiler technology [16][17] and processor implementation techniques [18] will very likely proceed at a much faster pace for IPF than x86, a CISC architecture nearly two decades older, so this gap will tend to widen over time, especially with growing ISV experience optimizing for the architecture [19]. However, because of code density driven differences in minimum effective cache sizes for x86 and IPF desktop processors, it is unlikely that their variable manufacturing cost could cross until both employ 90 nm or better process technology. That means 2004 at the earliest according to Intel’s current public roadmap for IPF.
======================================================
======================================================
In terms of addressing the desktop class form factor, the 0.13 µm Madison/Deerfield [15] version of Itanium 2 can reportedly operate at 1.3 GHz while keeping maximum power dissipation comparable to a 2.66 GHz Northwood Pentium 4. In this scenario the IPF processor would provide roughly 10% higher integer performance and about twice the floating point performance for native applications. Advances in compiler technology [16][17] and processor implementation techniques [18] will very likely proceed at a much faster pace for IPF than x86, a CISC architecture nearly two decades older, so this gap will tend to widen over time, especially with growing ISV experience optimizing for the architecture [19]. However, because of code density driven differences in minimum effective cache sizes for x86 and IPF desktop processors, it is unlikely that their variable manufacturing cost could cross until both employ 90 nm or better process technology. That means 2004 at the earliest according to Intel’s current public roadmap for IPF.
======================================================
Gee. I haven't been here in aaaaages, but this place still looks the same, and Juin still can't write English. Some things never change I guess 
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question My laptop is stuck in a "Please select boot device" menu after I got a bsod.- Started by Random_Kabyle
- Replies: 14
-
-
Question Intent-Based Optimization Node — Boosting Performance Without Overclocking
- Started by DRMIOmega
- Replies: 11
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram