Itanium and Itanium 2 going down faster than a drunk soroity sister

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Windogg
How is this for a gaming system?

2 x 1Ghz Intel Itanium II
4GB Rambus PC4200 RDRAM
128MB Bitboys Video Adapter
2MB S3 ViRGE for 2nd monitor
8 x 75GB IBM 75GXP (RAID0)

Watch this baby go down like the Titanic

You're insulting the Titanic with these specs

 

[N8Magic]

Getting back on track here:

The Itanium 2 has greater integer and floating-pont performance than the Power4.

Itanium2 specint2000: 750 specfp2000: 1350
Power4 specint2000: 839 specfp2000: 1266

You were saying? (they look pretty close to me)

I had a hell of a time even finding these benchies, because Intel seems to spend most of their time ripping the Ultrasparc III.

 

[Random Variable]

I had a hell of a time even finding these benchies, because Intel seems to spend most of their time ripping the Ultrasparc III.

Go to the SPEC web site

CFP2000 (Base/Peak)

hp workstation zx6000 (1000 MHz, Itanium 2) - 1356/1356
hp server rx5670 (1000 MHz, Itanium 2) - 1178/1305
hp server rx2600 (1000 MHz, Itanium 2) - 1174/1301
hp workstation zx2000 (900 MHz, Itanium 2) - 1050/--

IBM eServer pSeries 690 Turbo (1300 MHz) - 1202/1266
IBM eServer pSeries 670 (1100 MHz) - 1017/1075
IBM eServer pSeries 630 Model 6E4 (1000 MHz)- 843/886

 

[N8Magic]

Originally posted by: Vespasian

I had a hell of a time even finding these benchies, because Intel seems to spend most of their time ripping the Ultrasparc III.

Go to the SPEC web site

CFP2000 (Base/Peak)

hp workstation zx6000 (1000 MHz, Itanium 2) - 1356/1356
hp server rx5670 (1000 MHz, Itanium 2) - 1178/1305
hp server rx2600 (1000 MHz, Itanium 2) - 1174/1301
hp workstation zx2000 (900 MHz, Itanium 2) - 1050/--

IBM eServer pSeries 690 Turbo (1300 MHz) - 1202/1266
IBM eServer pSeries 670 (1100 MHz) - 1017/1075
IBM eServer pSeries 630 Model 6E4 (1000 MHz)- 843/886

I grabbed my benchmarks elsewhere... I thought I had looked everywhere for that data on the SPEC website but couldn't find it at the time.

I stand corrected.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: pm

Why don't they take on the Power4? I would consider it to be a direct competitor.

IBM is also a partner in selling and building Itanium-based workstation and server solutions... not that this would likely have anything to do with it.

Also, isn't Sun the market share leader?

 

[ElFenix]

damn... i just realized HP has PA-RISC, IA-64, and Alpha...

 

[SP33Demon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Google used Linux...? Not that it's really going to run any slower or faster with Itanium or Sledge....

 

[dullard]

I realize that Itanium is labeled as a server chip. But I have a hard time thinking that servers are its main use. For the typical server for a typical business, even a P4 or Athlon will run just fine (just look at how much Anandtech can handle and the vast majority of websites get less work that that). When it comes to large businesses, they refuse to switch technology even if it is better. I wouldn't expect to see many Itanium servers there either for quite some time. Plus with the economy in a slump server sales haven't been very spectacular. Thus Google just doesn't seem to be the right customer for Itanium.

The real customers are those who need the computational power. Computational simulations that cannot be run on simple desktop computers will be the first to make Itanium use widespread. Here is a brief list of these programs. People using these programs: 1) need more power than any other chip can provide, and 2) have the resources to purchase these chips even in this economy. If this group of people doesn't switch to Itanium, then Itanium will falter. At least for now, their server sales are going to be far less important.