Itanium versus Others
- From: jsavard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John Savard)
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 03:29:13 GMT
Intel's Itanium chip is rather expensive, and its MHz speed is not as
high as that of their Pentium 4 chips. Now, of course, we have the AMD
64 chips and Intel's EM64T. Is there a point to Itanium?
Wondering that, I looked up benchmark results, and found that as far as
floating-point performance, at least, is concerned, there certainly is.
I also came across IBM's POWER5. It also performs comparably to an
Itanium, but with a higher MHz speed. And I found out that the POWER5
isn't the same as the PowerPC G5 from IBM used in high-end Macintosh
computers. It's considerably more powerful, and it is a bulky multi-chip
module with four dual-core chips.
Since the POWER5 appears 'exotic', it does seem to me that the Itanium
is just about the only 'supercomputer-like' chip easily available; and,
of course, a single core providing the same throughput as eight cores
will do it with considerably less latency as well.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Itanium versus Others
- From: Zak
- Re: Itanium versus Others
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt
- Re: Itanium versus Others
- From: CJT
- Re: Itanium versus Others
- Prev by Date: Re: Cache coherency protocols: Write-update versus write-invalidate
- Next by Date: Re: Itanium versus Others
- Previous by thread: Cache coherency protocols: Write-update versus write-invalidate
- Next by thread: Re: Itanium versus Others
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|