4 ms·
Back in the day, we reluctantly abandoned PowerPC, UltraSPARC, PA-RISC, Alpha AXP, MIPS... because the bright future was Intel Itanium. Bye, bye, SUN, Silicon G
by repelsteeltje 3y ago
Back in the day, we reluctantly abandoned PowerPC, UltraSPARC, PA-RISC, Alpha AXP, MIPS... because the bright future was Intel Itanium. Bye, bye, SUN, Silicon Graphics, Acorn, DEC/Compaq, Hewlett Packard, Sony NEWS.
That future never materialized.
- flyinghamster 3y agoAbout the only real "success" of Itanium was wiping out the competing architectures. ARM only survived because its low power consumption was perfect for mobile and embedded use. Once Acorn was gone, we didn't see a mainstream ARM-based personal computer again until the M1 Mac.
- jabl 3y ago> About the only real "success" of Itanium was wiping out the competing architectures. Arguably x86-64 would have wiped those out anyway, with or without Itanium.
- unregistereddev 3y agoMost likely, yes. But without Itanium, the competing architectures would have had several more years of development before x86-64 was released. While the end result would probably be similar, it is interesting to think about what improvements may have been made in competing architectures in those interim years.
- acdha 3y agoYeah, the big question I have is whether PowerPC or maybe Alpha would have done better. Both had competitive chips but a lot of companies were waiting for Itanium since the analysts were saying that was the future. PPC survived for a while on Macs but it’s interesting to consider hope many extra millions shipped per year it would have taken to make it a profitable and more competitive business. Microsoft had NT running on the hardware so a switch could have been relatively quick.
- bell-cot 3y agoWorth noting - PA-RISC was Hewlett Packard's own baby, which they used for their higher-end systems. And, at least in Wikipedia's account of things ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium#Inception:_1989%E2%80%931994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium#Inception:_1989%E2%80%... ), Itanium was born when HP approached Intel about collaborating on a new architecture, and Intel happily accepted a load of fundamental design ideas from HP.
- u320 3y agoSure, but 64-bit x86 did materialize and killed Itanium, there is little reason to think it wouldn't have killed those archs too.
- bell-cot 3y agoMaybe...but Itanium was a join announcement by A-listers Intel and HP in June '94. Vs. C-lister AMD didn't announce x86-64 until 1999, didn't release the full spec. until Aug'00, and didn't ship an actual product until Apr'03. Without Itanium, those other architectures could easily have had an extra decade or more, and things might have turned out quite differently.
- monocasa 3y agoMaybe, maybe not. I'd argue what really killed Itanium was the end of dennard scaling. The whole arch was based on clocking faster and faster rather than being a slower, but smarter core. The end of dennard scaling put a ~5GHz cap on CPU speeds, is it's whole value prop didn't make sense against smarter cores that clocked just as high. IMO, on the technical merits, a lot of those dead archs are just as valid ISAs for slower, smarter cores as x64 is and would have been able to compete. PowerPC and AArch64 are pretty damn comparable.