Re: Itanium versus Others
- From: Zak <jute@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:54:41 +0200
Robert Myers wrote:
The list I love to hate, the "Top" 500, does not support your
prejudices--unless you think machines on that list are for short term
('niche') applications.
I think they are: you buy one supercomputer and adapt your software to it. The next supercomputer will be a different model. So if you get the Itanium cache for free, by all means get it.
To build a long term strategy on it is follish from a business point of view. If Itanium were to dominate, the PC will be back to '50 % of the cost goes to the CPU' pretty soon - just because customers have no choice where to buy their compatible part.
AMD and Intel do very well together to keep prices low. VIA is not that important (low end) but is a possible third supplier.
IMO Itanium was set up to become a single source chip. Which explains why one can buy a 9 MB cache rather affordably - not because it is cheap to make, but because it has to be sold in volume.
It's true: Intel Xeon dominates the list, with placements in 254 systems. One of the possible "second sources"--Opteron--accounts for 25 of the systems, as opposed to 77 systems for Power processors, 36 for PA-RISC and 79 for Itanium. There are no Via processors on that list, and I'd be interested to hear if they are anywhere in use for HPC applications.
I wouldn't want to create the next Apply using Itanium. Just too big a chance to send all your profits to a single supplier.
If you bought Xeon and were gouged, you could switch rather more easily.
Thomas .
- References:
- Itanium versus Others
- From: John Savard
- Re: Itanium versus Others
- From: Zak
- Re: Itanium versus Others
- From: Robert Myers
- Itanium versus Others
- Prev by Date: Re: Code density and performance?
- Next by Date: Re: Designing my own architecture to be simulated in software - need help with the ISA
- Previous by thread: Re: Itanium versus Others
- Next by thread: About Chipset architecture
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|