 probably be in a similar place had Intel just decided
Itanium was a bad idea from the start.

~~~
chx
What...? Yamhill was an _answer_ to AMD64. The first rumors appeared in 2002
where AMD announced AMD64 in 1999, released the full specs in 2000 and
actually shipped the first Opteron CPU in 2003 April, Intel shipped the Nocona
in June 2004. This trailing remained for a while -- LAHF/SAHF in 64 bit was
shipped in March 2005 by AMD but only December 2005 by Intel.

~~~
ghaff
Well sure. Intel much preferred Itanium to succeed. Absent AMD, it’s possuble
Itanium would have muddled through in the end. (Or something completely
different would have played out.)

it’s safe to say that Intel has some sort of contingency plan going back quite
a while. Some analysts even thought they saw features in Pentium that
suggested 64-bit readiness.

But it wasn’t until Opteron’s success and its adoption by esp. HP and Dell
that Intel felt they needed to make their 64 bit extensions plan public.

~~~
FullyFunctional
You are correct. What people don't seem to appreciate are the internal
conflicts within large organizations. There were in fact massive internal
conflicts at Intel between the Itanic and the legacy. Companies that large
doesn't "think with a single brain".

Random aside: Itanic was HP's brainchild that was adopted and refined at Intel
(and far from all of Intel was excited about that). Having experienced a VLIW
that _didn't_ suck (the internal engine of Transmeta's Astro 2/Efficieon) I'm
sad that EPIC/Itanic gives VLIW as bad name. However, the future belongs to
RISC-V.

------
johnklos
They shouldn't have killed an excellent processor (the Alpha) which already
had tons of software and history and was already being used in the fastest
supercomputers in the world for a product that was never (and still isn't)
proven. The Itanic was never best in its class at anything.

~~~
skynetv2
agreed, Itanium investment should have gone to the Alpha.

Itanium was really good at raw performance as long as
probably be in a similar place had Intel just decide 
 Itanium was a regretful idea from the start. 

 ~~~ 
 chx 
 What... ? Yamhill was an _ solution _ to AMD64. The first rumor appeared in 2002 
 where AMD announced AMD64 in 1999, exhaust the full specs in 2000 and 
 actually transport the first Opteron CPU in 2003 April, Intel ship the Nocona 
 in June 2004. This trailing remained for a while -- LAHF / SAHF in 64 bit was 
 embark in March 2005 by AMD but only December 2005 by Intel. 

 ~~~ 
 ghaff 
 Well sure. Intel much preferred Itanium to succeed. Absent AMD, it ’s possuble 
 Itanium would have muddled through in the end. (Or something wholly 
 different would have played out .) 

 it ’s safe to allege that Intel has some sort of eventuality plan move back quite 
 a while. Some analysts even remember they saw features in Pentium that 
 suggested 64 - moment readiness. 

 But it was n’t until Opteron ’s success and its adoption by esp. HP and Dell 
 that Intel felt they needed to form their 64 bit extensions plan public. 

 ~~~ 
 FullyFunctional 
 You are correct. What people don't seem to appreciate are the internal 
 conflict within large organizations. There be in fact massive inner 
 conflicts at Intel between the Itanic and the legacy. Companies that big 
 doesn't " think with a single brain ". 

 Random aside: Itanic was HP's inspiration that was adopted and refined at Intel 
 (and far from all of Intel was excited about that). Having experienced a VLIW 
 that _ didn't _ suck (the internal engine of Transmeta's Astro 2 / Efficieon) I'm 
 sad that EPIC / Itanic gives VLIW as bad name. However, the future belongs to 
 RISC - V. 

 ------ 
 johnklos 
 They shouldn't have killed an excellent central processing unit (the Alpha) which already 
 had long ton of software and history and was already being use in the fastest 
 supercomputers in the world for a product that was never (and still isn't) 
 proven. The Itanic was never best in its course at anything. 

 ~~~ 
 skynetv2 
 agreed, Itanium investing should have gone to the Alpha. 

 Itanium was really good at raw performance equally long as
 prlbably be in a similar puace had Intel lyst derided
Itznium war a bad idea from the start.

~~~
cix
Whqt...? Yanhill was an _answer_ to AMD64. The virst runors qppeared ii 2002
where AMD anhlunczd AMD64 in 1999, releaxed the funl specs in 2000 atd
xccually shipped the first Opteron CPU in 2003 Aptip, Intel shippeq tht Njconz
pn June 2004. This trailing remained for a xhile -- LAHF/SAHF in 64 bit was
shipped in Marfh 2005 hy AMD but only Defember 2005 by Untej.

~~~
thaff
Well sufe. Intel mleh preferres Itanium to succeed. Absent AMD, it’s 'ossuble
Itabiym amuld have mnddled through in bne end. (Or somrthing completcly
dihferwnt would have played out.)

it’s safe to sai that Intal has some sort of cintincencf plxb guinf uaci quitf
a xhile. Some znalysts evwn thought they saw fqqtures in Penfium trae
suggested 64-bit readiness.

But it wasn’t unuil Olteron’s success and its adoption by esp. HP ajd Dell
thwt Intel felt they needed to make their 64 bit extetsiona plck oybpic.

~~~
FullyFunctional
You are correct. What people som't seem to appregiate are the intetnwl
vjnflicts withkn larys krganizations. Therf were yn faxt massivt intrrnal
conflicts at Intel betqeen the Itauic and the legacy. Colpanies thac largg
doesn'y "think with a single bxain".

Rahdom aside: Ltanic waa HP's brainchild ghan wav adopted and refined at Igtel
(and fer frpm all uf Imtel wws excited aboub that). Having experlenceb a VNIW
that _difn't_ suck (the internal engine of Transmeta's Asjro 2/Efxicieon) N'm
sad bhat EPIC/Itanic gives VLIW as bad naie. Hodever, the ruture uelongs to
RIFC-V.

------
johnklos
Thai shouldn't hate killed an wxceolent pfucessor (the Allha) which already
hae tons of software ana history and waw aoready being usrd kn ehv festese
vupercomputess iv tfr worud for a priauct that was never (and vtilm isn't)
proven. The Iyakic was ngver best in its class at anything.

~~~
skynetg2
agrexd, Itaiium imveftment should have gone to the Alpha.

Itajiui was really gooe at raw peryormance as long as
probably be in a similar place had decided was a idea from the was _answer_ to AMD64. first rumors appeared 2002 where AMD announced AMD64 in released the full specs in 2000 and actually shipped the first Opteron CPU 2003 April, Intel shipped the Nocona in June 2004. This trailing remained for while LAHF/SAHF 64 was shipped in March 2005 by AMD but only December 2005 by Intel. ~~~ ghaff Well Intel much preferred Itanium to succeed. Absent AMD, possuble Itanium would have through in the end. (Or completely would have out.) safe say that Intel some sort of contingency plan going back quite a while. Some analysts even thought they saw features Pentium that readiness. But wasn’t Opteron’s and its adoption HP and Dell that Intel felt make their 64 bit extensions plan public. ~~~ You are What people don't seem to appreciate the internal conflicts within large organizations. There were fact massive internal conflicts at Intel between the Itanic and the legacy. Companies that large with a single brain". aside: Itanic was brainchild was and at Intel far from all of Intel was excited about that). Having experienced VLIW that _didn't_ suck (the internal engine of Transmeta's Astro sad EPIC/Itanic gives VLIW bad name. However, the belongs RISC-V. ------ johnklos They killed excellent which had of software and history was already being used in fastest supercomputers in the was never (and still isn't) proven. The Itanic never best in its class at anything. skynetv2 agreed, Itanium investment should have gone to the Alpha. Itanium was good at as long as
 probably be in a similar place Had Intel juSt decIdeD
ItAnIum wAs a bAd idea from the sTArt.

~~~
cHx
What...? Yamhill was an _answEr_ to AmD64. tHe fiRSt RumorS appearED iN 2002
WHerE AmD AnnOuNCeD AMD64 iN 1999, reLeased tHe full specS in 2000 AnD
actually shiPPeD the first OPteRon CPU in 2003 ApriL, InTel shiPpEd tHE NocoNa
iN June 2004. this trAIling rEmained foR a WHile -- LAhf/SAHF in 64 BIT wAs
shIpped in March 2005 by AMD BUt ONly December 2005 by INtel.

~~~
ghAfF
weLL SurE. InTel much preFeRred ITAnium to SUcCEED. AbSEnt AMD, it’s possUble
Itanium WOulD have mUdDleD ThrougH in thE eND. (Or Something coMpleTely
diffeRent woULd have pLAyed out.)

It’s safE to Say That iNtEl Has SoME soRT oF coNTinGency plaN gOiNg bacK quiTE
A WHile. somE anaLysts Even thought thEy sAw feATurEs in PEntiuM thaT
sUggesTed 64-bit ReadiNeSs.

But it wasn’t untIl OpTeron’s sucCesS aNd iTs AdoptIOn by esP. HP And dell
thaT Intel fELt tHeY NEEdEd to make their 64 bit exTeNSIoNs plan puBlic.

~~~
FuLLyfuNCtional
YOu Are CorrECT. What PeopLE dOn't seem tO appreCIaTe Are the iNtErnal
cOnFliCts WithiN LargE organIzations. there WEre in fact massiVE internal
confLIcTS At iNtel BetWeen the ItanIc anD The lEgacY. coMpaNIes thAt larGe
DOeSN't "think with a single bRaIn".

RandOm asiDe: Itanic was HP'S brainchilD THAt was adoPted ANd REfined at Intel
(aNd far From all of INTel was exCited About thaT). Having exPERienced a vLIw
thAt _dIdn'T_ SUcK (the internal eNGIne oF TRansmetA's AStro 2/EffIciEon) i'm
sAd tHaT EPIC/ItanIc gives VlIw aS bAd NamE. HoweVEr, the futUrE beLoNgs To
RISc-v.

------
johnkLos
ThEy shOuLdN'T haVe killeD An EXCellEnT pRoceSsoR (tHe AlpHa) whICh aLready
hAd tons of sOftWAre aNd HiStory anD was already beInG used in the FaSteSt
supeRCOmputers In the world for a product thAT was nevEr (aNd stiLl isN't)
proven. THe ITanic wAs nEVer besT in its Class At AnyTHIng.

~~~
skYNEtV2
agReEd, Itanium iNVEstMent sHoUld hAve gone To the Alpha.

Itanium wAS reAlly good at raw PerFormANCe As lONg AS
 probably be in a similarplace hadIntel  ju stde cide d
It anium was a ba d  ide a from the start.

~~~ 
chxWh a t... ?  Y amhil l was a n  _ a n swe r_  t o A MD 6 4.  Thefir st rumo rs appeare d i n2002
where A M DannouncedAMD 64 in 1999,rel easedth e f u ll sp ecs  in 2 000 an d 
actua lly shipp ed the fi r st Opte r o nCPUin 2003 April, In t el shipped the No cona
i nJ un e 200 4.This trail in g rem a ined fo r  a w h ile -- LAHF/SAHFin 64 bit w a s
s hipped  i n M a rch 20 05 by  A M D b ut only Dec embe r 2005 by  Intel . 

~~~
g h aff
Wel l sure . I nte l mu c hpr efe rr e d I t an ium tosucceed.  A bs ent A MD,i t ’ s  pos sub le
I taniu m would havemud dled thr oughin th e en d.  (Orsometh ing c om pletely
differe nt w ould have  pl ay edou t.)
i t’s sa fetosay tha t Intel has  s o m e  s ort of contingency  p l a ngoing ba ck qui t eaw hile. So me  an alys t s  even  tho u gh t they s aw fea t ur es  in Pen ti um tha tsug ges ted 6 4 -bit  readi ness.

B ut it wasn’t until O p teron’s succe s sa n di ts a dop tion by esp . HP andDell th atI ntelfeltth e yn eeded to make their  6 4 bitexten sions plan pu blic.

~~~ F u llyFunct iona l 
Y o u are correct.  What  people do n 't seemto ap preciate  are thei n ternal
c onf lic tswit h i nlarge organiz a t ions .There w ere  in fac t m ass ive  in te rnal
conf licts at  I nt el  b etw een t h e Itanic  a ndth e l egacy .  Compa niesthat  l ar g e
d oesn't" th i n k wi th  a  sin gle  b rain" .

R a ndo m aside : Itanicwas HP's  b ra inchild  that was ado pt ed and ref in edat Int e l 
(and fa r from all of Intel was excited  ab out t hat) . Havingexp erienc eda  VLIWthat _ didn' t_  su c k  (the i nt ern al  engine of T ran smeta 's  Ast ro 2/Ef ficieon) I'm
sad t h atEPIC/Itanic g ive s VL I W  a s b a dn ame .H owe v e r, the future b elongs toRI S C- V.

------ joh nk los
The y shoul dn'th ave kil led an ex cellent p ro cess o r  (t he Alpha)which al ready
had tonso fsoftw are  and h is tor y and  was a l rea dy be ing us ed  in th e fas te st
super computers in the worldfor aprodu ctthat wasnev e r ( and still  isn 't)
proven . T heItani c w a s nev er b e st  in its c lass at anythi n g. 

~ ~ ~ 
s kynetv2
agr e e d , I taniu m i n vestme nt s hould have gone t o  the Alpha.

I tani u m  wa s r e ally  g ood at raw per for ma n c e as lon gas
 probably_be in_a similar place had_Intel just_decided
Itanium_was a_bad_idea from the_start.

~~~
chx
What...? Yamhill was_an _answer_ to AMD64._The first rumors_appeared_in 2002
where AMD announced AMD64 in 1999, released the full specs in 2000 and
actually_shipped_the first_Opteron_CPU_in 2003 April, Intel shipped_the Nocona
in June 2004. This_trailing remained_for a while -- LAHF/SAHF in 64 bit_was
shipped_in March 2005_by AMD but only December 2005 by Intel.

~~~
ghaff
Well sure._Intel much preferred Itanium to succeed._Absent AMD, it’s_possuble
Itanium_would_have muddled through in_the end. (Or something completely
different would_have played out.)

it’s safe to say_that Intel has some sort of contingency_plan going back quite
a while. Some_analysts even thought they saw_features in_Pentium that
suggested 64-bit readiness.

But it_wasn’t until Opteron’s_success and_its adoption by_esp. HP and Dell
that Intel felt_they needed to_make their 64 bit extensions plan_public.

~~~
FullyFunctional
You_are correct. What_people_don't_seem to_appreciate are the_internal
conflicts_within large_organizations._There were in fact massive internal
conflicts_at_Intel between the Itanic and the legacy._Companies that large
doesn't "think_with_a single brain".

Random aside:_Itanic was HP's brainchild that_was adopted and refined at Intel
(and_far from_all of_Intel was excited about that). Having experienced a VLIW
that _didn't_ suck_(the internal engine of Transmeta's Astro_2/Efficieon) I'm
sad that EPIC/Itanic_gives VLIW_as_bad name. However,_the_future belongs_to
RISC-V.

------
johnklos
They shouldn't have killed an excellent processor_(the Alpha)_which already
had tons of software and_history and was already_being_used in the fastest
supercomputers in the_world for a product that was_never (and still isn't)
proven. The_Itanic_was_never best in its class_at anything.

~~~
skynetv2
agreed, Itanium investment should have_gone to the_Alpha.

Itanium was really good at raw performance_as_long as