Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:03:15 01/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2001 at 01:05:56, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >On January 18, 2001 at 23:58:00, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On January 18, 2001 at 15:14:05, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >>>On January 18, 2001 at 11:55:29, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>On January 17, 2001 at 23:21:19, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 17, 2001 at 22:52:22, David Wilke wrote: >>>>>>On January 17, 2001 at 17:59:25, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 17, 2001 at 17:47:34, John Dahlem wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Are these new 64 bit processors just for servers, or are they going to replace >>>>>>>>32 bit processors within 1-3 years? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Pretty much any new processor Intel introduced was aimed >>>>>>>at 'servers only' in the beginning. However, home users >>>>>>>always want the latest and the fastest so no doubt they >>>>>>>will be on the desktop soon...Unless the price is really >>>>>>>outrageous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>GCP >>>>>> >>>>>>Intel has outragous prices? Say it isn't so... :) >>>>>> >>>>>>Intel is going to lose the processor war. Athlon can easily compete, and is the >>>>>>cheaper solution. Someone should wake up the marketing idiots at Intel and get >>>>>>them on the ball. >>>>> >>>>>Athlon does not compete with Itanium. There is no VLM model with Athlon. The >>>>>direct competition for Itanium is Compaq's Alpha chip. >>>>> >>>>>If you have some database that needs 12 gigabytes of physical ram and 100 TB of >>>>>virtual memory, how will you address information with Athlon? It is outside of >>>>>the address space. >>>> >>>>Only a small part of the server market needs this I would think. I don't believe >>>>you can conclude "Athlon does not compete with itanium" from this. >>> >>>Yes, 95% of servers are small ones. But people who choose hardware/spftware >>>combinations hope that one day their company will grow, and they will have to >>>process huse amount of data. So they are choosing scalable solutions, even if >>>95% of them will never use that scalability. >>> >>>Eugene >> >>Buying an itanium for its VLM is going way overboard even for them. > >Maybe, but they will do this. A lot of startups bought Suns instead of Intel >machines because they hped that one day they'll need all that scalability. And >Suns (till recently) were more several times more expensive than comparable x86. > >Eugene Yes... but unfortunately they have always been several times _slower_ as well. :( Suns are simply not viable. > >>> >>>>> >>>>>The 64 bit address space and 64 bit native operations are unique to those two >>>>>(and a smattering of other chips that nobody will ever care about).
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.