SoulReaper

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
194
0
18,680
0
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
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
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.
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
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.
 

Grizely1

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
7,810
0
30,780
0
Small? That thoing is like bigger than the pentium4 ! STUPID INTEL SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
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.
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
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.
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 

flavio321

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2001
321
0
18,780
0
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
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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!!!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS