Itanium ahead of itself, not behind ...
Bob Ceculski
otherwise, I know I can read as others can and Itanium
is actually ahead of schedule, not behind like others
(we know who) have asserted ... from cnet ...
Intel accelerates Itanium schedule
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
January 15, 2003, 9:00 PM PT
Read more about chips
Intel has changed the release schedule of its Itanium chips for
servers, adding a new chip for 2004 and moving up the launch date of
an Itanium with two processor cores to 2005 from 2007.
The changes reflect Intel's confidence in its ability to release
high-end server chips faster than competitors and thereby gain the
performance high ground, said Jonathan Eunice, principal analyst at
Illuminata.
Itanium 2 ranks with the best server chips in the market, but the new
release schedule will likely enhance the chip's attractiveness and put
pressure on competitors to step up their own schedules, something that
they have been loath to do.
Intel's "design teams and design resources are well stocked, so they
can do a shrink early or do a dual-core (chip) early. They have a lot
of leeway that would stress out a Sparc development team," Eunice
said, referring to shrinking the size of components on a chip and to
Sun Microsystems' UltraSparc processor.
Under the new schedule, the Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker this
summer will release Madison, a souped-up version of the current
Itanium 2 with 6MB of level 3 cache, according to Jason Waxman,
marketing manager for enterprise processors at Intel. Increasing the
cache, a reservoir of memory located on the processor, generally
enhances performance.
The chip, which will contain around 500 million transistors, will run
at 1.5GHz. Madison, like the entire Itanium family, is a 64-bit chip,
meaning that it can digest data in 64-bit chunks (as opposed to 32-bit
Pentium chips). Typically, 64-bit chips fit into the most expensive
and powerful servers.
Soon after, Intel will release Deerfield, an energy-efficient Itanium
2 for rack and blade servers.
Then, in 2004, the company will come out with a new version of Madison
that will contain 9MB of level 3 cache. Most server chips currently
come with 1MB of cache. This chip was previously not on Intel's
product road maps, Waxman said.
Two cores better than one
In 2005, Intel will follow with Montecito, which will contain two
Itanium processor cores on the same piece of silicon. Dual-processor
chips are pretty much what they sound like: single chips that contain
two separate "brains" so they can best a single-core chip but cost
less than two separate ones.
It's one of the hot design ideas in the chip world. IBM has already
come out with the first dual-processor chip for the server market,
Power4. Sun's UltraSparc IV, debuting toward the end of the year, is
expected to contain two processor cores.
Analysts have also noted that Advanced Micro Devices' Opteron chip,
coming out in the first half, could be redesigned to accommodate a
second processor core.
Originally, Montecito, due in 2004, wasn't a dual-core chip, but it
was morphed after engineering and manufacturing teams concurred that a
dual-processor chip could be mass-manufactured at Intel by 2005.
"Our dual-core (chip) was originally planned for the following
generation of chips," said Waxman.
Besides enhancing performance, Intel may use its dual-core chips to
undercut IBM, said Kevin Krewell, senior editor at the Microprocessor
Report. In larger servers, Oracle and other software vendors charge a
licensing fee for every processor in a given server.
To date, IBM has said that the Power4, although a single chip, has two
processors. Hence, software customers have to buy two licenses for
each Power4 chip. Intel is already indicating that it will consider
Montecito a single processor, requiring only one software license,
Krewell said.
"I think they are going to sell it that way to make it cost effective"
to switch to Itanium from other servers with different chips, Krewell
said.
Montecito, Krewell added, will be made on the 90-nanometer process,
which means the average feature inside the chip measures 90
nanometers. Madison, Madison II and Deerfield will contain features
measuring 130 nanometers. The current Itanium 2 comes with
180-nanometer features. Reducing feature size allows companies to
squeeze more transistors on a chip.
Not as sweet by any other name
Continuity is another theme. Madison, Deerfield and Madison II will be
sold under the Itanium 2 name.
All of the forthcoming chips, including Montecito, will also fit into
the same motherboard sockets and be capable of using the same chipsets
currently used in Itanium 2 servers, said Waxman. In turn, this will
reduce the need for server makers to redesign their servers with each
new chip release, smoothing the commercial adoption.
Despite its long and often controversial history, the Itanium family
appears to be gaining momentum in the market, according to Eunice. In
the mid-1990s, analysts speculated that the chip, designed by Intel
and Hewlett-Packard, would become one of the most popular for high-end
servers. However, the first version, formerly code-named Merced, was
delayed several times and offered only middling performance. It
finally debuted in 2001; sales were dismal.
Itanium 2, formerly McKinley, came out in July 2002 and was
substantially different from the first Itanium. Analysts have given it
fairly positive reviews.
Itanium 2 "competes or outperforms the fastest Alpha and Power chips.
It is right up there at the elite country club of performance," Eunice
said.
Still, despite strong benchmark scores, sales started slow. The
economy was in a slump, which discouraged interest from customers,
software developers and hardware makers.
Interest, though, appears to be growing, Eunice said. Laboratories and
other scientific customers are increasingly offering Itanium 2
servers. More software tools are also coming onto the market. If the
tide changes, Intel could benefit.
"2002 was a terrible time to launch a new technology," said Eunice.
Bill Todd
"Bob Ceculski" <b...@instantwhip.com> wrote in message
news:d7791aa1.03011...@posting.google.com...
> if you are Bill Todd, then disregard this as pure b.s.,
No problem.
> otherwise, I know I can read as others can
I don't doubt that you can read, Bob, just that you have a clue after having
done so. The article you reproduced is the one I provided a pointer to in
my own post, and explained there.
The article's author was either snowed or bought off by Intel. Other
publications were less credulous:
http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20030116S0062
Intel delays 64-bit processor to re-engineer part
By Mark LaPedus
Semiconductor Business News
January 17, 2003 (10:34 a.m. EST)
SANTA CLARA, Calif.--Intel Corp. here today confirmed it has delayed a
next-generation, 64-bit microprocessor line by one year, after the company
decided to re-engineer the product. The company also announced a new 64-bit
processor in its roadmap to fill the gap for the delayed chip, code-named
Montecito.
...
- bill
gokrix
> if you are Bill Todd, then disregard this as pure b.s.,
> otherwise, I know I can read as others can and Itanium
> is actually ahead of schedule, not behind like others
> (we know who) have asserted ... from cnet ...
>
>
> Intel accelerates Itanium schedule
>
> By Michael Kanellos
> Staff Writer, CNET News.com
> January 15, 2003, 9:00 PM PT
>
> Read more about chips
>
> Intel has changed the release schedule of its Itanium chips for
> servers, adding a new chip for 2004 and moving up the launch date of
> an Itanium with two processor cores to 2005 from 2007.
> The changes reflect Intel's confidence in its ability to release
> high-end server chips faster than competitors and thereby gain the
> performance high ground, said Jonathan Eunice, principal analyst at
> Illuminata.
I see the fnords!!!
--GS
David J. Dachtera
Pls forgive my ignorance, I seem to gotten lost in the semantics. Pls
clarify. Does this say that an unnamed chip has been plugged into the
roadmap to precede Montecito, or is Montecito the precedent?
--
David J. Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/
Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Bill Todd
"David J. Dachtera" <djesys...@fsi.net> wrote in message
news:3E2B687D...@fsi.net...
> Bill Todd wrote:
...
> > http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20030116S0062
> >
> > Intel delays 64-bit processor to re-engineer part
> >
> > By Mark LaPedus
> >
> > Semiconductor Business News
> > January 17, 2003 (10:34 a.m. EST)
> >
> > SANTA CLARA, Calif.--Intel Corp. here today confirmed it has delayed a
> > next-generation, 64-bit microprocessor line by one year, after the
company
> > decided to re-engineer the product. The company also announced a new
64-bit
> > processor in its roadmap to fill the gap for the delayed chip,
code-named
> > Montecito.
>
> Pls forgive my ignorance, I seem to gotten lost in the semantics. Pls
> clarify. Does this say that an unnamed chip has been plugged into the
> roadmap to precede Montecito, or is Montecito the precedent?
The former (the unnamed chip seems to be being called Madison II at least by
some) - but the phrasing is indeed ambiguous.
- bill
Shane Smith
goalposts further out several times, so what if they're coming back a
little?
Shane
-----Original Message-----
From: b...@instantwhip.com [mailto:b...@instantwhip.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 11:44 AM
To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
Subject: Itanium ahead of itself, not behind ...
if you are Bill Todd, then disregard this as pure b.s.,
otherwise, I know I can read as others can and Itanium
is actually ahead of schedule, not behind like others
(we know who) have asserted ... from cnet ...
Intel accelerates Itanium schedule
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
January 15, 2003, 9:00 PM PT
Read more about chips
Intel has changed the release schedule of its Itanium chips for
servers, adding a new chip for 2004 and moving up the launch date of
an Itanium with two processor cores to 2005 from 2007.
The changes reflect Intel's confidence in its ability to release
high-end server chips faster than competitors and thereby gain the
performance high ground, said Jonathan Eunice, principal analyst at
Illuminata.
Itanium 2 ranks with the best server chips in the market, but the new
Shane Smith
it's dead.
Petshop owner: It's not dead, it's pining for the fnords.....
Shane
-----Original Message-----
From: gok...@hotmail.com [mailto:gok...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:10 AM
To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
Subject: Re: Itanium ahead of itself, not behind ...
b...@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message
news:<d7791aa1.03011...@posting.google.com>...
> if you are Bill Todd, then disregard this as pure b.s.,
> otherwise, I know I can read as others can and Itanium
> is actually ahead of schedule, not behind like others
> (we know who) have asserted ... from cnet ...
>
>
> Intel accelerates Itanium schedule
>
> By Michael Kanellos
> Staff Writer, CNET News.com
> January 15, 2003, 9:00 PM PT
>
> Read more about chips
>
> Intel has changed the release schedule of its Itanium chips for
> servers, adding a new chip for 2004 and moving up the launch date of
> an Itanium with two processor cores to 2005 from 2007.
> The changes reflect Intel's confidence in its ability to release
> high-end server chips faster than competitors and thereby gain the
> performance high ground, said Jonathan Eunice, principal analyst at
> Illuminata.
I see the fnords!!!
--GS