<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Intel denies killing Itanium</title>
		<description>Discuss Intel denies killing Itanium</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 10:36:40 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/22219/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>The_Countess says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19422</link>
			<description><![CDATA[which is precisely why it failed. it didn't run ~95-99% of existing software. and AMD64 as it officially should be called (except when you ask intel) does clean up the x86 significantly. 16bit is no longer supported in 64bit mode for example. in a few more generations it will probably be removed from the CPU's altogether.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>The_Countess</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:29:38 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19422</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Squall_Leonhart says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19420</link>
			<description><![CDATA[sorry, but you're an idiot. x86-64 is a mess of instructions that the Itanium platforms sought to address by dropping the and building a pure 64bit platform free from any ancient crap.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Squall_Leonhart</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:31:53 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19420</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>markhahn says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19350</link>
			<description><![CDATA[sorry, ia64 is NOT significantly better than x86_64 - certainly not for HPC. I can't think of any market segment that will mourn the official passing of ia64, whenever Intel/HP get up the guts to do it. in fact, this kind of news should raise the question: was ia64 ever a missed opportunity? what problem was this VLIW-like architecture meant to solve? it seemed to be inspired by the early RISC emphasis on compilers making it easy for the hardware. many people claimed early that ia64 just needed better compilers - but that hasn't happened at all. today ia64 does OK on big-vector code, but certainly doesn't stand out any other way. outside of HPL, vector code is not all that common, not enough to support a separate ISA...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>markhahn</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 03:58:43 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19350</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19339</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Itanium ISA (used to be called IA-64, don't know what they call it now) was very well thought out. IA-64 is leaps and bounds better for performance computing than x86-64. The problem is that everything is written for x86/x86-64. This is one instance of how we'd have come out better if intel had a full on monopoly. We wouldn't be stuck with x86 anymore. Not that x86 is particularly bad, it's just very convoluted and there are better ways of doing things. Poulson looks like a pretty mean chip. I could have bought the idea of intel killing Itanium off more easily before Tukwila, but with Poulson it actually looks like they're trying.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 02:17:42 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19339</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19248</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Itanium had potential, it was very good... designed. Unfortunately it wasn't designed by some universities and offered in an alliance package, but done by intel on hard terms, and that Super XP, is the main problem. Anyway, I suppose you right then, we're better off without it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:46:59 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19248</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Super XP says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19241</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Does not matter who killed off Itanium, it sucks anyway. The world is better of without Itanium and it's Major problems...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Super XP</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:44:03 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19241</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>genetix says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19230</link>
			<description><![CDATA[HP-Intel hand in hand. software vs. hardware. Still saying in this scenario hardware will lose 10:1.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>genetix</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:08:01 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22219-intel-denies-killing-itanium#comment-19230</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
