| |
End of the RISC chip... |
| |
(13:32 14/6/2001)
Gulli (13:52 14/6/2001)
arenaman (13:58 15/6/2002)
johnstlr (14:48 14/6/2001)
ams (20:12 14/6/2001)
|
| |
|
Walks |
Message #2397, posted at 13:32, 14/6/2001 |
| Unregistered user
|
There is an article in this weeks edition of Computing predicting the death of RISC processors within 18 months. Apparently the new Itanium processor from Intel is turning a few heads and is seen as a cheaper alternative to RISC processors. Already some major manufacturers have decided to follow this route, HP, Compaq, IBM and Dell being a few examples. The article did focus on the server side of things and so didn't take into account the other areas where RISC chips are used (i.e. mobile devices). However it could be bad news for ARM (who they mentioned) and as a result us RISC OS users... |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Gulli |
Message #2398, posted at 13:52, 14/6/2001, in reply to message #2397 |
| Unregistered user
|
Wasn't the death of CISC processors predicted some 20 years ago after the arrival of RISC processors? I doubt that Itanium is going to kill off other types of processors in a matter of months! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
johnstlr |
Message #2400, posted at 14:48, 14/6/2001, in reply to message #2397 |
| Unregistered user
|
Apparently the new Itanium processor from Intel is turning a few heads and is seen as a cheaper alternative to RISC processors.
Looking at the data sheet it's massive, is X86 compatible and isn't going to be "cheap".
Already some major manufacturers have decided to follow this route, HP, Compaq, IBM and Dell being a few examples. The article did focus on the server side of things and so didn't take into account the other areas where RISC chips are used (i.e. mobile devices). However it could be bad news for ARM (who they mentioned) and as a result us RISC OS users...
The datasheet makes it quite clear really. This chip is designed to compete against UltraSparcs, PowerPC G4s etc etc at the high-end of the market. It may be cheap compared to these but there is no way it's going to be as cheap as a StrongARM, XScale, ARM10, whatever. It'll also eat a lot more power too. ARM don't have anything to worry about. If the Itanium was designed to compete in the same market Intel would never have built the XScale. Intel have publically admitted in the past that, as far as embedded, mobile, low powered devices go, they see the future as ARM (or ARM derivative) based. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
ams |
Message #2401, posted at 20:12, 14/6/2001, in reply to message #2400 |
| Unregistered user
|
Agreed. Itanium's first edition is likely to be slower than some of Intel's conventional Pentium's. Later versions may well improve on that. Later iterations will improve on that. As to it being a "low cost" alternative to RISC I am afraid not. HP (one of the co-developers of Itanium) are aiming it at high end servers and the like (I suspect Intel will do the same at least from the short to medium term). |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
arenaman |
Message #2399, posted at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #2398 |
| Unregistered user
|
Of course it's not! Are they going to use CISC chips in mobile devices (phones and PDAs) and all the other numerous low-power devices? No. Also, don't forgetall the RISC OS / ARM technology that Pace is now shipping. 
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
