Microsoft Phasing Out Support for Intel Itanium

Status
Not open for further replies.

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
You don't really believe Microsoft, do you?

The reasons for phasing it out are due to the poor performance of the Microsoft OS and SQL Server. Itanium chips running HP/UX have roughly twice the performance of the same machine running Windows and SQL Server.

Since that's pretty much all Microsoft sells to in that market, it's a useless product.

Also, why would core counts going higher be related to this? By that measure, x86 has always been ahead of Itanium. The Tukwila actually makes the Itanium more competitive than it has been for a while.

Microsoft is talking their normal nonsense. Their product sucks and can't compete, so they had to leave the market. It's not the first time that's happened.
 
G

Guest

Guest
TA152H: Actually, it's the performance of Itanium that sucks, not the other way around. Microsoft said it sucks, Linus Torvalds(creator of Linux) said it sucks, who else do you need to hear it from?
 

WheelsOfConfusion

Distinguished
Aug 18, 2008
705
0
18,980
0
Also, MS had only a tiny sliver of marketshare on Itanium platforms: most ran HPUX (HP's Unix distro) if I remember right. Little loss for MS to drop the platform.
 

palladin9479

Distinguished
Moderator
Jul 26, 2008
3,245
0
20,860
45
Itanium was Intel's bad idea to take over the server processor marketplace. It was proprietary as hell and they had no plans on licensing its instruction set to any other manufactures (AMD). Thankfully it didn't work out, it sucked performance wide and required everything to be compiled for it naitivly.
 

ptroen

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
90
0
18,630
0
Itanium is actually a great idea it's just phasing out the x86 instructions is downright tricky. I'm surprised why x86 manufactors haven't introduced new cores with only x86 instructions. This would be the easiest way to solve this problem in the long run.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
The area Itanium sucked in was x86 because it was not naitive. It was emulated instead which cut 20% performance. Microsoft is mainly a x86 OS so it would make sense.

Itanium will go forward in the pure x64 market.
 

martel80

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2006
368
0
18,780
0
Itanium does not have any features most x86 CPUs have (branch prediction, speculative execution etc.) and relies on the compiler to put this into the executable. Works great in theory, fails (failed) practically because the compiler is too hard to develop. It's not the hardware that's bad...

OTOH, it would be great if MS used the resources to support ARM. Having windows 7 on ARM wouldn't be so bad.
 

GeoMan

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2005
218
0
18,680
0
And so the beginning of the end for the Itanic

Watchman: ‘Captain, ice berg ahead!’
Captain: ‘Don’t worry, we’ll have plenty of time to steer around it’

Fare well Itanic, you probably won’t be missed.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
[citation][nom]linus_torvalds_groupie[/nom]TA152H: Actually, it's the performance of Itanium that sucks, not the other way around. Microsoft said it sucks, Linus Torvalds(creator of Linux) said it sucks, who else do you need to hear it from?[/citation]

Linus Torvalds isn't always right, despite your apparent worship. He and another fellow have argued back and forth on the Itanium. Linus believes even a bad instruction set is OK, because over time it gets understood and works OK. Volume and time makes up for a lot of the problems, according to him.

The problem with Itanium is it's always way behind in manufacturing technology. It just moved to 65nm, whereas Intel has been using 32nm for x86 for months.

But, your point is irrelevant. Itanium has always been slower, for reasons mentioned above, but Microsoft supported it. Tukwila closes the gap, it doesn't make it bigger. But, the problem is, HP/UX and Oracle are roughly twice as fast on the Itanium as Windows and SQL Server. So no one wants it. Well, not enough people want it to make it feasible for Microsoft to keep developing it.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
[citation][nom]ptroen[/nom]err I mean cores with x64 instructions....[/citation]
64-bit is generally slower than 32-bit, and almost completely unnecessary for many apps. They are also lousy like x86, so it's not like you could get rid of the decoders and have a nice RISC instruction set. You'd still have the problems, with little benefit. Also, did you forget BIOS screens are 16-bit (real mode)?
 

dgingeri

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2009
2,123
1
20,460
212
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]But, the problem is, HP/UX and Oracle are roughly twice as fast on the Itanium as Windows and SQL Server.[/citation]

The problem here is that Itanium costs 8 times as much and uses more than twice the power. Using x64, a company can cut costs by 75%, cut power by 10-15%, cut cooling by 10-15%, and get the same performance.

There are just guys out there who don't want to change because then they wouldn't "be needed". They want to secure their jobs rather than save the company money. These same type of guys are resisting the death of both OS400 and many Unix applications.

Wintel/x64 can keep up in many of these arenas, although not all. Microsoft and Intel are catching up in the areas where they don't currently keep up. All the while, there are guys out there resisting the change because they wouldn't know how to take care of the new systems (even though it is much easier to learn, thus the labor market for Windows Server admins is wider and cheaper) and they'd lose their exclusivity.

People who hold back change just to keep from having to learn a new job make me sick. The wave is coming. There is no getting out of the way. Adapt or die.
 

dgingeri

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2009
2,123
1
20,460
212
[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]The problem here is that Itanium costs 8 times as much and uses more than twice the power. Using x64, a company can cut costs by 75%, cut power by 10-15%, cut cooling by 10-15%, and get the same performance. There are just guys out there who don't want to change because then they wouldn't "be needed". They want to secure their jobs rather than save the company money. These same type of guys are resisting the death of both OS400 and many Unix applications. Wintel/x64 can keep up in many of these arenas, although not all. Microsoft and Intel are catching up in the areas where they don't currently keep up. All the while, there are guys out there resisting the change because they wouldn't know how to take care of the new systems (even though it is much easier to learn, thus the labor market for Windows Server admins is wider and cheaper) and they'd lose their exclusivity. People who hold back change just to keep from having to learn a new job make me sick. The wave is coming. There is no getting out of the way. Adapt or die.[/citation]

no it certainly isn't. 64-bit software has access to twice as many registers and is executed faster on AMD processors. Most floating point instructions execute from 1 to 5 clock cycles faster on AMD processors, and SSE/MMX instructions are 2 clock cycles faster almost all the way across the board. Granted, Intel chips don't have this advantage, but there is no penalty for running in 64-bit mode. The register advantage alone is enough to give it a 3-5% advantage.
 

kentlowt

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2006
156
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]Also, MS had only a tiny sliver of marketshare on Itanium platforms: most ran HPUX (HP's Unix distro) if I remember right. Little loss for MS to drop the platform.[/citation]
and Open VMS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS