4 ms·
Titanium was really more of a failing of core technology than a failing of execution whereas Larrabee was much more of a failing of execution than core tech, an
by deepnotderp 9y ago
Titanium was really more of a failing of core technology than a failing of execution whereas Larrabee was much more of a failing of execution than core tech, and the issue with Larrabee was really the fact that software GPU functions were not only slower in speed, but even slower to develop (!).
- bhouston 9y agoInteresting. I guess I view homegrown tech just really risky if you try a new approach. Success isn't assured here unless you just mostly replicate with a just small little spin on top. Maybe they are building upon AMD's core tech based on that other licensing deal? If so I would bet on them succeeding.
- blattimwind 9y agoItanium was an all-around failure, including idea, execution, management, and ecosystem.
- andreiw 9y agoI thought Itanic was just a really smart diversionary tactic to kill off HP-PA (HP), MIPS (SGI) and Alpha (DEC/Compaq) development. It worked, and it didn't matter that Itanic was itself on borrowed time. The later is further proof that if you sell to dinosaurs, you won't survive the Big One (in this case, x86 growing up courtesy of AMD and Arm spending 15 years washing the footing underneath both by moving personal computing to mobile devices). This should be a big warning sign to the OpenPower guys. You need to start small and scale/price up, not the other way around.