SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: wanna_bmw who wrote (158785)2/14/2002 2:36:06 PM
From: Joe NYC  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
wbmw,

IA-64 was designed to extract more parallelism from code

I think it is the compiler that is supposed to extract parallelism, but there is a limit to how much parallelism there is. There are dependencies, branches, loops.

While Itanium can perform well as a database server, where there is a lot of repetition/parallelism in sorting and comparisons, there is very little parallelism in business logic.

and speculated execution and predication will give enormously high branch prediction rates.

Is this a compiler generated execution and prediction? I didn't know Itanium had any built in capacity for speculative execution and prediction.

Additionally, McKinley will have 6 parallel integer / memory execution blocks, which should offer far more throughput than any current x86 processor.

I don't know how much these will contribute. In x86 world additional execution blocks offer less and less marginal gains. Theoretically, I guess compiler can take advantage of all of them.

BTW, I think McKinley has more execution and address calculation blocks than Merced. Are these explicitly addressed by the compiler, that is, does the compiler know how many there are, or is the executable in sort of intermediate form, and the processor assembles the intermediate instructions to what gets actually executed?

Or how else will existing code take advantage of additional resources provided by McKinley? Or does the software need to be recompiled for each processor?

Joe



To: wanna_bmw who wrote (158785)2/14/2002 2:55:08 PM
From: Paul Engel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Fry's Electronics in Sunnyvale had a 2.2 GHz Hewlett Packard PC on sale a few days ago - with a rather new model number - a 790 - or something like that.

There were several other (Sony included) 2.0A GHz PCs (meaning Northwood based !!)

Paul