3 ms·
Yes, at that time Intel had the belief IA64 could be the new architecture. But do you think that plan had a chance to work out? I think it would've become clear
by andix 4y ago
Yes, at that time Intel had the belief IA64 could be the new architecture. But do you think that plan had a chance to work out? I think it would've become clear after a few years, that IA64 was not a suitable platform to replace the complete CPU lineup. For example to replace the mobile Centrino CPUs with IA64. I think it would've failed in a similar way like Apple failed to put their G5 PPC into a laptop (and switched to Intel then).
Or some pressure, because there is a strong business need to run new 64-bit code side-by-side with old x86 code (which is very slow on Itanium).
And 32 bit + PAE might have been fine in 2000, but by 2010 the de-facto limit for 4GB memory space per process would've become a huge issue.
- midoridensha 4y agoI'm not addressing whether things would have worked in reality, I'm telling you what the corporate leadership was telling us at the time. You can claim all you want that it wasn't realistic or whatever, but this is the same corporate leadership that thought everyone would be perfectly happy to spend $$$$ on patented RAMBUS memory. Yes, they really did seem to think that IA64 was going to be everywhere eventually. x86 code was slow on Itanic because it was just a bolt-on PentiumPro IIRC. It was only there for compatibility mode, and was never meant to be high performance. Code needing performance was going to be compiled for IA64 using the magic compiler that didn't exist yet.