Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 20:54:14 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 18:20:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 21, 2003 at 10:23:19, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On February 21, 2003 at 09:47:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>That logic is circular. They can make faster xeons but they can't make faster >>>Itaniums??? >> >>Besides the fact that P4 is orders of magnitude less complex than Itanium, there >>are several reasons why P4 can ramp up in clockspeed much faster than Itanium. >>If P4 suddenly makes a huge jump, Itanium may be able to jump also, but nowhere >>near as much. It's not as if Itanium machines are selling like hotcakes as it >>is, so I'm sure Intel wouldn't be too happy if the Xeon starts eating into that >>segment of the market more than it already has. > > >I would think they would be more than interested in clocking beyond the PPC4, >the >alphas, the HP PAs, the MIPS 64 bitters, and so forth... Intel could probably have released 1.5GHz Itanium a while back, had it wanted to, by using the 0.13um Copper process instead of the older 0.18um Aluminum one. Instead, they've waited until Itanium3 (Madison/Deerfield) to do that. Since Madison is practically just a shrunken version of McKinley, I don't see why this would have been a problem. >They don't sell as many, but the profit margin is _way_ larger up there on that >end of the server spectrum. Which is why they don't want Xeons eating into that segment.
This page took 0.01 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.