hmaly, Re: "We have a hard time comprehending it because Itanium was sold under the guise that by everyone selling the same chip, high volume, (relatively speaking),low margin,low design costs, would cut the costs."
Huh?? What are you talking about? I vaguely remember Intel and HP saying something about VLIW being the future architecture for PCs back when they first announced their partnership back in 1995, but I haven't heard anything along those lines, since. With the kind of support being pledged to Itanium for the past several years - HP-UX, Oracle, BEA, SQL, OpenVMS, etc - it's been clear for a long time that IA-64 would be a server oriented product (and a high end one at that). Whatever false impressions that you had no doubt came from a corporate pipe dream back when IA-64 was being defined. You need to get current, and realistic. IA-64 may never be lower design cost or manufacturing cost relative to x86, but that's not really the point, now. Maybe it will in the future, but it's clear from the architecture and design (large caches, huge register file, large number of execution units, etc) that it was planned to be a high cost product, mostly created to satisfy a small market requiring performance and reliability at any cost. Sorry if you don't buy it, but it's been quite clear to the majority of the industry for quite some time.
Re: "I will bet you that Hammer, after 6 months, has far more commitments, than Itanium 2 does."
LOL. We will see. Do you mean 6 months from now, or 6 months from launch. I want to know so that I can remind you of your prediction at that time. <ggg>
wbmw |
