Faster image rotation
|
Prev: Which is the most beautiful and memorable hardware structure in a ?CPU?
Next: Energy usage per application ?
From: Tim McCaffrey on 20 Apr 2010 21:15 In article <4BCB4D56.6040507(a)patten-glew.net>, ag-news(a)patten-glew.net says... > >On 4/18/2010 7:40 AM, nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: >>>> Itanium was just a hopelessly clumsy design. > >> What seems to have happened is that a few commercial compscis[*] >> demonstrated that working on some carefully selected programs, and >> persuaded the decision makers that they could deliver it on most of >> the important, performance critical, codes. > >> [*] NOT a flattering term. > > >Hmm... From my point of view, the Itanium was the first computer architecture driven mainl >y by academics with PhDs. > >Its immediate predecessor, the P6, has only one PhD amongst its 5 primary architects. (Bo >b Colwell.) > >Itanium had a lot more people who had piled it higher and deeper. I thought the 432 had a lot of input from CompSci PhDs? (and see how well that turned out, and they went on to add protected mode to the 286). - Tim
From: Tim McCaffrey on 20 Apr 2010 21:19 In article <hqfti9$n9a$1(a)smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk says... > >In article <75d79415-bc83-4989-80c4-610acae0942c(a)12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, >MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup(a)aol.com> wrote: >>On Apr 18, 10:03=A0am, Robert Myers <rbmyers...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> My assumption, backed by no evidence, is that HP/Intel kept adding >>> "features" to get the architecture to perform as they had hoped until >>> the architecture was sunk by its own features. >>> >>> You think the problem is fundamental. =A0I think the problem is >>> fundamental only because of the way that code is written, in a >>> language that leaves the compiler to do too much guessing for the idea >>> to have even a hope of working at all. >> >>I think the problem was/is fundamentally a political issue with the >>leadership of the design teams, especially in the ability of the >>leadership to say "No, let us not dedicate of expend resources >>investigating that corner of the design space." > >Yes and no. That was definitely the cause, but the missing ability >was to ask "Hang on. Is what we are assuming really true?" > > Having been on two different projects, one where I presented (after months of effort) to management that the product would *never* reach design goals (it just was inherent in the design), and another were management just wouldn't hear that the eventual product *would* *exceed* the design goals, but we just didn't have a working version running yet, I have to have some sympathy for those involved. But, it was pretty obvious that Itanium was dead 4 or 5 years ago. Why is Intel still wasting money? - Tim
From: Robert Myers on 20 Apr 2010 21:39 On Apr 20, 9:19 pm, timcaff...(a)aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) wrote: > > But, it was pretty obvious that Itanium was dead 4 or 5 years ago. Why is > Intel still wasting money? > Because Itanium isn't dead. HP appears to be doing just fine with it. Robert.
From: "Andy "Krazy" Glew" on 20 Apr 2010 22:13 On 4/20/2010 6:15 PM, Tim McCaffrey wrote: > In article<4BCB4D56.6040507(a)patten-glew.net>, ag-news(a)patten-glew.net says... >> >> On 4/18/2010 7:40 AM, nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: >>>>> Itanium was just a hopelessly clumsy design. >> >>> What seems to have happened is that a few commercial compscis[*] >>> demonstrated that working on some carefully selected programs, and >>> persuaded the decision makers that they could deliver it on most of >>> the important, performance critical, codes. >> >>> [*] NOT a flattering term. >> >> >> Hmm... From my point of view, the Itanium was the first computer architecture > driven mainl >> y by academics with PhDs. >> >> Its immediate predecessor, the P6, has only one PhD amongst its 5 primary > architects. (Bo >> b Colwell.) >> >> Itanium had a lot more people who had piled it higher and deeper. > > I thought the 432 had a lot of input from CompSci PhDs? > (and see how well that turned out, and they went on to add > protected mode to the 286). > > - Tim It may well be true that the '432 was academically inspired. Before my time.
From: Bengt Larsson on 23 Apr 2010 05:55
Quadibloc <jsavard(a)ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Apr 21, 7:46�pm, Bengt Larsson <bengtl8....(a)telia.NOSPAMcom> wrote: > >> Indeed, HP decides how long Itanium is alive. What else could they >> use? x86? > >Well, now that the x86 architecture has available for it the same >mainframe-like RAS features that Itanium had all along, that, at >least, is a possibility. That's possible, but Nehalem-EX is, after all, very recent. |