IA-64 vs x86-64 Who will win?

[theplanb]

Well, somebody has to win. No same software will run both. It's one way or the other. Winner gets it all I think.. So which is the cpu architecture of the future?

 

[MadRat]

There is no winner in this case, both competing in different markets. Both can be successful independent of the other when you look at their strengths. As far as that goes it quickly becomes a "no contest" matchup.

 

[NFS4]

<< There is no winner in this case, both competing in different markets. Both can be successful independent of the other when you look at their strengths. As far as that goes it quickly becomes a &quot;no contest&quot; matchup. >>


Intel has already won, Microsoft isn't supposting x86-64 in it's 64-bit operating system.

 

[MadRat]

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean they've won.

1. It will still run non-Microsoft O/S's
2. It will still run existing Microsoft O/S's, but with 64-bit memory addressing

The latter is why direct Microsoft support is a non-issue.

 

[ragiepew]

NFS4... is this the truth? I mean, did MS already say for sure they weren't going to support this? Also, if HAMMER can run 32bit code just as fast as 64bit, well then it may still have a long life ahead of its self...

 

[NFS4]

<< NFS4... is this the truth? I mean, did MS already say for sure they weren't going to support this? Also, if HAMMER can run 32bit code just as fast as 64bit, well then it may still have a long life ahead of its self... >>


Microsoft did state this, I will try to find a link.

 

[Noriaki]

<< 2. It will still run existing Microsoft O/S's, but with 64-bit memory addressing >>

Where did you hear that? In 32bit mode it uses 32bit addressing...

The x86-64 may make for decent high-end desktops and entry level workstations...but servers? No...

You see...the desktop world thrives on compatibilty...you have to go backwards. The server world doesn't so much....

Everything in that world is proprietary.
Sun runs their OS on Sun built machines with Sun made CPUs.
IBM runs their OS on IBM built machines with IBM made CPUs.
HP runs their OS on HP built machines with HP made CPUs (actually I think HP is swtiching the HP-UX platform to run on Itaniums...but you know what I mean).

Intel doesn't need backwards compatiblity to make headway in the server market. They need a powerful processor that is highly capable in one area or another.

x86 is a weak architecture it really is. All this legacy BS just drags it to the floor. Intel realizes it and is making their first steps away.

AMD is trying to prolong the life of a head horse.....

Now I appreciate what AMD is doing and my last 3 CPUs have been AMD. They do great work...but x86 is not the future. Especially in the server market.

 

[Rectalfier]

I heard that XP will have support for 64bit memory addressing. If not XP, I believe microsoft said they will support it somewhere down the line.

I agree with Madrat, they are going after different markets. Itanium is going for the high end server market, while AMD is going for the low end server/workstation market. In other words, Intel is going after Sun, and AMD is going after the Xeon. So really AMD is not going to lose anything, If AMD succeeds, Intel will lose some marketshare of their Xeon.

 

[LocutusX]

<< HP runs their OS on HP built machines with HP made CPUs (actually I think HP is swtiching the HP-UX platform to run on Itaniums...but you know what I mean). >>



That's because HP was the co-developer of IA-64. If they have enough confidence in IA-64 to switch their &quot;tried-and-true&quot; MIPS platform to IA-64 chips, then it's got to be good.