Into the Core - Intel's New Core CPU 178
Tyler Too writes "Hannibal over at Ars Technica has an in-depth look at Intel's new Core processors. From the article: 'In a time when an increasing number of processors are moving away from out-of-order execution (OOOE, or sometimes just OOO) toward in-order, more VLIW-like designs that rely heavily on multithreading and compiler/coder smarts for their performance, Core is as full-throated an affirmation of the ongoing importance of OOOE as you can get.'"
AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:5, Informative)
I believe that AMD had this technology [wikipedia.org] before Intel ever started in on it. Yes, I know it wasn't really commercially available on PCs but it was there. And I would also like to point out a nifty little agreement between IBM and AMD [pcworld.com] that certainly gives them aid in the development of chips. Let's face it, IBM's got research money coming out of their ears and I'm glad to see AMD benefit off it and vice versa. I think that these two points alone show that AMD has had more time to refine the multicore technology and deliver a superior product.
As a disclaimer, I cannot say I've had the ability to try an Intel dual core but I'm just ever so happy with my AMD processor that I don't see why I should.
There's a nice little chart in the article but I like AMD's explanation [amd.com] along with their pdf [amd.com] a bit better. As you can see, AMD is no longer too concerned with dual core but has moved on to targeting multi core.
Do I want to see Intel evaporate? No way. I want to see these two companies go head to head and drive prices down. You may mistake me for an AMD fanboi but I simply was in agony in high school when Pentium 100s costed an arm and a leg. Then AMD slowly climbed the ranks to be a major competitor with Intel--and thank god for that! Now Intel actually has to price their chips competitively and I never want that to change. I will now support the underdog even if Intel drops below AMD just to insure stiff competition. You can call me a young idealist about capitalism!
I understand this article also tackles execution types and I must admit I'm not too up to speed on that. It's entirely possible that OOOE could beat out the execution scheme that AMD has going but I wouldn't know enough to comment on it. I remember that there used to be a lot of buzz about IA-64's OOOE [wikipedia.org] processing used on Itanium. But I'm not sure that was too popular among programmers.
The article presents a compelling argument for OOOE. And I think that with a tri-core or higher processor, we could really start to see a big increase in sales using OOOE. Think about it, a lot of IA-64 code comes to a point where the instruction stalls as it waits for data to be computed (most cases, a branch). If there are enough cores to compute both branches from the conditional (and third core to evaluate the conditional) then where is the slowdown? This will only break down on a switch style statement or when several if-thens follow each other successively.
In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Also I would be interested in a Cell / Power based content creation workstation --- but not from Sony, I've give
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2, Informative)
I don't see how that could really be useful. I mean if you were computing instructions on a one by one basis, then perhaps that would work, but you fill the pipe then find out it's the prediction is wrong so you go to the other cpu, however when you look at the bigger picture you realize that you are essencially crippling one CPU by dedicating it to doing something other than actually processing.
Intel's CPU branch prediction is already k
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:4, Interesting)
Camp 1: devise adaptive, multi-component prediction systems that offer both fast and accurate branch prediction. Waste hardware purely for branch prediction.
Camp 2: Use the compiler hint if available, otherwise execute both paths, and throw away the incorrect processing path. It seems cheaper on the surface, but you have to realize: all that extra fetching to process both paths in reasonable time mean more fetch bandwidth and more execution units required just to keep up.
Obviously, if your code contains lots of branches that cannot be predicted by the compiler hints, the Camp 2 solution is going to perform worse. The advantage of active branch prediction is that you never have to recompile the code to keep the branch hints "optimized" if your datasets change.
It doesn't really matter which camp you choose, because both camps waste space on a Branch Target Buffer (predicts the TARGET of the branch) anyway, and that's often more costly than the branch direction predictor. Even the Itanium has a BTB, that's how it can instantly start executing the "branch taken" case.
The Itanium is just taking advantage of a serious architectural flaw to perform branch prediction. Even modern compilers are inserting 20% or more "noops" into the instruction stream, why not take advantage of that underutilization. On any other platform, it would be a very stupid approach to branch prediction.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmmmn, I think I'll actually call you someone who needs to read up a bit on both idealism and capitalism!
Also, on a somewhat note - never care about a company, because the company cannot reciprocate your feelings.
If Intel comes out with a better, cheaper processor tomorrow, don't buy the AMD one, buy the intel one. Their is no point treating a company like a person.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
This is personal responsibility: I will try to avoid moving resources to a company that behaves badly, instead trying to move they resources where they do good.
Eivind.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly you've never heard of a boycott, picket, or any other similar form of consumer revolt.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:3, Insightful)
The car, however, doesn't know you're going to stop giving it gasoline if it doesn't do what you want, and can't possibly respond. So TERRIBLE analogy. A company is certainly far closer to a human than a mindless machine.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
I obviously missed the point. In fact I still do. I guess I gave you too much credit, assuming you were trying to make a point about the inhumanity (amorality as you said later) of corporations.
If that really was your point, it's so banal and inspid that I can't understand why you even went through the trouble of posting it.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
You mean those things that have an almost insignificant effect compared to market forces the vast majority of time? Until Intel starts killing dolphins, only a handful of nerds are going to care.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
I wasn't trying to suggest one at all. I was simply making the point that companies DO respond to how their customers treat them, and have means to "reciprocate your feelings".
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2, Insightful)
You missed his point entirely. You're advocating a short-term, passive outlook, while the GP is advocating a long-term, active one. If you buy whoever is less expensive now, you get the benefit of saving money on this purchase and every purchase from them until they decide to raise prices. And that will be shortly after they snuff all the competition out
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Let's hear it for the underdog. (Score:2)
What the grandparent was saying is that it's good to support the underdog for the sake of the future. If Intel comes out with an amazing chip and everyone stops buying AMD, then AMD goes out of business. What happens to development at Intel? It slows. What happens to prices at Intel? They increase. Eventually this will get so bad that it becomes
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:3, Insightful)
If Intel comes out with a better, cheaper processor tomorrow, don't buy the AMD one, buy the intel one. Their is no point treating a company like a person.
Well, the poster specifically said he did not care about either company, just that there was still competition. And I think there is a assumption of parity when you suggest buying the product from the company with less marketshare.
Especially, as yo
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:5, Interesting)
As you fear a beating from the Intel side after what I say I fear I will receive a beating from both.
In my personal experience the AMD chips have been the fastest systems I have ever owned. My problem with them is the boards made for them (this is personal experience only) tend to become unstable after a couple of years. Intel boards, in my experience, stay stable longer.
For example, I have two 5 year old systems, one with a Gigabyte AMD Athlon board, and one with a true Intel P3 board. Both run Slackware. Both have insane cooling so the board temps never go over 100 degrees. The Athlon board system will occasionally reboot for no reason. The Intel board system has run for months without ever needing to be touched. The last time I brought it down was for a power outage that lasted longer than the battery on my UPS. I have tested everything on the Athlon system. The power supply is solid, the hard drive is new and the second one I have installed, none of the controllers test bad, and while it is running nothing tests bad using diagnostics. Then it suddenly reboots.
One would think this an isolated incident but I have build 6 Athlon systems in the last 5 years for friends and only two are still stable. All of the Intel systems I have built with true Intel boards in the last 15 years are still running including a 486 DX/2 66. I know this is personal experience only and not a good enough sample to make any real judgement but as for me, I pick Intel. That said, I believe the problems I have had with AMD come from the fact that none of the boards are made by AMD. If AMD made a board up to the same standards as its CPU I believe my opinion would change in a heartbeat.
You may commence my flogging now...
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:1)
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
You're comparing one brand of motherboard (Intel) with a very large GROUP of motherboards (any Socket-A compatible). For it to be fair, you'd have to compare something like Asus Intel motherboards to Asus AMD motherboards.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:3, Informative)
>motherboards with the Intel brand on it.
Two points:
1. Intel design chipsets for their CPUs. AMD designed one, a while back, and otherwise relies on 3rd party.
2. Intel may well have designed, engineered, and spec'ed the board, regardless of who makes it.
So this is really a statement that Intel has better control of delivering their CPU capabilities to the end user than AMD, independent of the r
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
I used to like Gigabyte boards ever since I got my old TX board for my P200. But I don't think I'll be buying any more Gigabyte boards for now:
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
I don't overclock and make sure to keep my machines reasonably cool. I try to use good power supplies.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
If you buy a decent mb (nvidia nForce 4 is my personal pick, in a mini configuration to fit in a shuttle xpc), then you're good to go with a rock solid system.
I think the actual processor is rarely the problem, unless you have cooling issues.
I blame VIA (Score:2)
Look up the problems with soundblaster sound cards, they exhibit the problem, but it wasn't Creative's fault.
I've had the same experience as you. I've alternated Intel and AMD, and except for the KT133A they've
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
For example. Chang Sing Song Gung FUTECH Bloody Monster board gets a few BIOS updates and is forgotten. Off to the next chipset. Intel designs are supports for eons, I still have a PPRO VS440FX motherboard with a BIOS that came out MANY years after the board
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:3, Interesting)
I say assumed, because I think twice we tracked it down and it was
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Not just the chipset, but not the proc (Score:2)
However, in the other cases, the computers would display really odd problems. Linux systems would reboot, Windows systems would blackscreen, etc. One thing all the problems had in common was this:
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Check your cooling. This is just apocryphal, but AMD chips seem to be temperature-sensitive. A recurring re-booting problem on my dual AMD machine was due to a failing fan in an unused, removeable hard drive tray. It was telling the CPU that there was a failure, which caused shutdowns.
Yes, I use the Windows condoms (updated anti-virus, spyware and latest patches)
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
I think the point is that the chipset issues for AMD are pretty much over now. If you go with an AMD-64 CPU and an AMD or Nividia chipset, use good ram, and a good cooling solution you will probably not have any more stability issues than with an Intel system.
The simple answer is by quality and configure it correctly.
Don't want to be seen as an AMD fanboi? (Score:1)
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2, Informative)
There is nothing new with Out of Order Execution. It's been implemented in all the Pentium cores as well as AMD chips from the K6 (I think) on up. In fact, the reason why going to multi-core designs is necessary is because i
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
1) OOO was not used in the original Pentium. It debuted (for Intel) in the P6 family. This includes the Pentium Pro, PII, & PIII. The P4 is also OOO, but is not a P6 derivative.
2) Super-scalar does not require multiple pipelines. The term refers to the ability to run simultaneous execution units, but these can be fed in various ways. In the Pentium, there were indeed two separate pipelines. However, the P6 dispatches micro-ops (uops) to multiple execution engines from
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
It's been a while since I looked at the IA64 architecture, but ISTR it addressed this issue by tagging instructions. I.e. an instruction word contains 3 instructions which are executed in parallel and a tag. Other instruction words containing the same tag are allowed to be executed in parallel too. So your basic processor can execute 3 instructions in parallel
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Perhaps (I'm not sure what "this technology" refers to), but so what?
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Ok, so I know I'm going to get a lot of AMD people agreeing with me and a lot of Intel people outright ripping me to shreds.
It is interesting that you start your comment by trying to build a dichotomy. Almost all the responses to your comment have been from people who (unlike you) don't care about the companies, only the products and results.
As a disclaimer, I cannot say I've had the ability to try an Intel dual core but I'm just ever so happy with my AMD processor that I don't see why I should.
Oka
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
I'm not going to beat you for choosing AMD over Intel. I'm not going to beat you for claiming that your loyalties will switch on a moments notice. I'm not even going to beat you for getting a well modded first post.
No, no, no. I'm going to beat you for being a brat.
Why? Because when I was in high school, I simply was in agony because 6502's cost an arm and a leg.
whippersnapper.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:5, Informative)
No offense, but you lost me right about here. The Athlon 64 and Opteron (and the Clawhammer/Sledgehammer chips as a whole) are fundamentally a whole different direction than the Core Duo. While they're aiming towards the same goals (really damned fast x86 code execution), they get there in two entirely different ways.
The idea behind the Athlon 64 and Opteron chips were to attack Intel where it would hurt them most, the midrange server section of their business. AMD realized that Intel sells more of these machines, and the maintainance contracts on these machines mean that they're going to keep coming back to you for more of them, even 5 years down the line when your chips are virtually "obsolete". This is broadcasted very loudly in their choice to integrate a memory controller onboard their CPUs; in order to upgrade chips with an integrated memory controller, you have to replace the whole board, and managers aren't going to want to do that very often. Your chips are cheaper overall (because they don't have to have external logic to drive the memory controller anymore, and they were cheaper to begin with), but it locks you into AMD as a company, and locks you into that chip (a slam dunk victory for AMD).
The Intel Core philiosophy was something completely different; it was reactionary in the sense that the Pentium 4 and Netburst were sputtering to the end of their performance gains, way earlier than Intel could have prediticted. But at the same time, Intel has always been known to make great mobile chips, and the Intel Core Architecture was built on a mobile chip platform. It was the logical choice, even in March 2003 when the Pentium M/Core Architecture first made itself available to the world as Banias. The Athlon 64 didn't even make itself available on the market until April (Opteron) or September (Athlon 64) of that year.
Better late than never? Yeah, of course. But the point is, the Opteron was meant to be a server chip and take back the market from Intel and is completely succeeding. The Core chips were entirely meant to be Mobile chips, and due to technology trickledown, we're starting to see that Mobile chips are just as much at home in desktop computers.
And, I know you werent' trying to make yourself out to be a complete and total AMD fanboy in your post, you entirely came off that way, especially without knowledge of the product itself. I don't care particularly for either company, just the fastest chips I can possibly get my hands on, and right now that's the Athlon FX, but in a few months that's going to be Conroe.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
This is broadcasted very loudly in their choice to integrate a memory controller onboard their CPUs; in order to upgrade chips with an integrated memory controller, you have to replace the whole board, and managers aren't going to want to do that very often.
I have yet to see any enterprise server that has had its "chips upgraded" beyond installing a 2nd CPU in a SMP-capable system with only one processor shipped. Never. Not once.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Out-of-order execution has been standard on x86 processors since the Pentium Pro. Itanium doesn't have OoO, at least so far. Its goal has been to reduce hardware complexity by letting the compiler h
OOOE (Score:2)
Let's clarify a few things: A processor executes instructions either in-order (including VLIW processors), or out-of-order. The former is much simpler to implement, but the latter is much more powerful. Why? b
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Run what's best for you.
I completely agree that competition is a Good Thing, not just for pricing but as long as neither company gets too far ahead of the other, they're also both working like mad to design better products for you and me to use.
As for myself, I've historically been known to purchase Intel for my desktop machines, mostly because I prefer to have my chipset designed by the same company as my CPU.
I recently bought this notebook, and I had the choice
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
He's right, and it does not matter who is the CPU maker. I have an Athlon X2 4200+ dual-core machine that I built (runs SuSE 10.0) , and have put in some butt time on a dual 2.8 Xeon Irwindale machine that I also built (but it is not mine, I just run it in a lab, and it runs FC5) I have used a Pentium D 820 machine a very small amount (XP Pro),
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Just one addition, branch instrucctions don't hold up processors, memory load and floating point instructions do. The problem with the branch instructions is that the branch decision may come too late, and the penalty depends on the depth of the pipeline.
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
No. For someone who claims to be educated in computer architecture, you are sadly lacking in understanding. Unfortunately, all you're thinking about is the mispredict penalty.
Floating-point multiplies are FAST these days. Memory load issues can hold up
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:3, Interesting)
OOE has been available since the P5 or Pentium days. Every mainstream processor architecture bar IA-64 (and maybe some MIPS cores) uses it.
There is a big difference between SMT and multi-core. SMT provides multiple contexts in a single core. This is very useful for reducing latency and increasing throughput (two things which are usually a trade off).
SMT improves throughput since any kind of hazard in one instruction stream, the CPU can continu
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Also, the only time SMT provides a significant benefit is when the processor's functional units are going unused - or, in other words, when the processor is operating inefficiently, perhaps due to bad branch prediction, for which intel is known :P
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (Score:2)
It sounded a bit high to me too, but that was the figure quoted by the lead architect on the P6 project at a talk I attended a couple of weeks ago.
and this is why... (Score:5, Funny)
"Brian, there's a message in my cereal! it says OOO..."
Re:and this is why... (Score:1)
Re:and this is why... (Score:4, Informative)
"Brian, there's a message in my Alphabits. It says 'OOO'"
"Peter those are cheerios."
See, it's just not as funny if you forget the Alphabits part.
Out-of-Order Operation Handling And High Hopes (Score:5, Funny)
processors are more in-order/VLIW now? (Score:1)
Re:processors are more in-order/VLIW now? (Score:2)
OOO? What about AAH? (Score:2, Funny)
New Intel marketing slogan? (Score:5, Funny)
"You can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Core!"
Article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what's in there.
Re:Article summary (Score:5, Informative)
I think you mean, "hoisting of loads above a
Core CPU - Truly a bizarre idea (Score:2)
core
n. Main storage or RAM. Dates from the days of ferrite-core memory; also still used in the UNIX community and by old-time hackers or those who would sound like them. Some derived idioms are quite current; `in core', for example, means `in memory' (as opposed to `on disk'), and both {core dump} and the `core image' or `core file' produced by one are terms in favor.
=
If now Intel has gone to using old ferrite core memory to perform CPU f
Re:Core CPU - Truly a bizarre idea (Score:2)
Re:Core CPU - Truly a bizarre idea (Score:2)
Whoa. (Score:2)
Ok, the conclusion is off, single threaded cores are for the desktop. Multicore is when you need the highest connections with the lowest latency. Hyperthreading helps by fighting memory latency, but they havent put hypert
AMD is looking better and better... (Score:2)
Why So Few Registers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why So Few Registers? (Score:2)
Re:Why So Few Registers? (Score:2)
It's not the ease that is the issue. The issue is the fact that you have to move things in and out of the CPU a lot more because there are not enough registers. Take a look at the clock ticks involved and you'll see that this is actually significant when doing highly processor based calculations.
Re:Why So Few Registers? (Score:2)
Re:Why So Few Registers? (Score:2)
Re:Why So Few Registers? (Score:2)
Intel needs asynchronous chip (Score:2)
Re:Intel needs asynchronous chip (Score:2)
Re:Hey Wait (Score:1, Troll)
I predict G)-(ostly, that by the time they're done moderating your comment, your name will be G)O(ostly
If you don't get it, allow me to elaborate:
Your Ass Before - ()-()
Your Ass After - ()O()
Burn karma burn
Re:Hey Wait (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (Score:1)
Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's not the fan. It's the CPU's idling mechanism, specifically its power-saving attempt. Up the CPU activity to around 5% and the noise goes away. I'd like to know if that's endemic to dual-core Intels at the moment, or if it's an Apple-specific problem.
Cheers
Ian
Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (Score:2)
So the answer to your question is: neither.
Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (Score:2)
Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (Score:2)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (Score:2)
Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (Score:2)
There was a run-on-startup utility available from somewhere with the same effect, but apparently 10.4.6 has broken that.
Fry baby! (Score:2)
Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (Score:1)
Re:Why AMD is better than Intel (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? Running big business is not the same skillset as chip engineer.
The CTOs, now *they* need a technical background. CEOs certainly don't, that's what Harvard MBAs are for.
Re:Why AMD is better than Intel (Score:2)
I have never met either CEO so I will pass on judging them.
Re:I'll most likely never buy intel again (Score:2)
Retard.
Re:I'll most likely never buy intel again (Score:2)
The truth is that there is a performance competition going on. AMD may have the edge now, but there is no guarantee that they will keep it. There's no way to effectively predict what the CPU wor
Re:Yeah! More Noops (Score:2)
Re:Core has OOOE? (Score:4, Informative)
1. The instruction overhead due to extra hint bits, etc, means Itanium instructions are much larger than x86 32/64 instructions. With the addition of poor branch performance (read: more wasted instruction bandwidth), the need for large, high-bandwidth caches makes Itanium expensive.
2. The compilers have not caught up. EPIC lacks OOOE, and has poor dynamic branch prediction hardware, so it is at the mercy of the compiler.
Core retains Intel's original insights made with the P6:
1. x86 is hard to decode (takes more silicon), but it takes less bandwidth than other instruction formats. Bandwidth is even more expensive than the cost of more complex decoders, just look how expensive it was for Intel to add full-speed cache to the original Pentium Pro, and how pricey the Itanium is with huge, fast on-chip cache.
2. OOOE + Branch Prediction + internal RISC is king. One reason the original Pentium never performed well is because it could RARELY execute more than one instruction per cycle. Thus, it performed like a fast 486 unless the code was recompiled as Pentium optimzed. The P6 was designed to avoid the reliance on compilers to improve performance, as it could optimize code in any condition. Funny, we didn't start seeing Pentium-optimized code on the market until the P6 started taking over.
Core is just a logical extension of this concept. The predictor is more accurate, there are more instruction decoders, more ALUs and SSE units, and more retirement units. The only reason Core seems to groundbreaking is because we didn't see it in small, evolutionary steps.
Re:Core has OOOE? (Score:2)
1. The instruction overhead due to extra hint bits, etc, means Itanium instructions are much larger than x86 32/64 instructions. With the addition of poor branch performance (read: more wasted instruction bandwidth), the need for large, high-bandwidth caches makes Itanium expensive.
No what makes itanium expensive is that they target a niche which buys only itaniums between 2000 and 4000 USDs the lower end itaniums don't sell. The
Interesting. (Score:2)
Maybe Epic has a future. But you did bring up one point. I would love to see a system like IBM used with the OS/400 become part of Linux.
The System 38/AS400 used an idealized ISA. When software was loaded onto the AS400 it was translated from that ideal ISA into what ever that machine happened to us for a CPU. That is how IBM managed to migrate from the CISC cpu of the Sys
Re:Interesting. (Score:2)
Re:Interesting. (Score:2)