4 ms·
Yeah, but that, again, was for far worse reasons than just not being "compatible". In fact, iAPX432 was exceptionally bad. Intel's i960 for example fared much b
by anyfoo 4y ago
Yeah, but that, again, was for far worse reasons than just not being "compatible". In fact, iAPX432 was exceptionally bad. Intel's i960 for example fared much better in the embedded space (where PC-compatibility did not matter).
- klelatti 4y agoIndeed and I suppose in fairness I don’t think 432 was ever intended as a PC cpu replacement whilst Itanium was designed to replace some x86 servers. As an aside I’m still astonished that 432 and Itanium got as far as they did with so much cash spent on them before without conclusive proof that performance would be competitive. Seems like a prerequisite for projects of this size.