Itanium

353 views
Skip to first unread message

Jason McNorton

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to

Eric Remy

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
In article <MPG.1262b9993...@news.itg.ti.com>, jm...@msg.ti.com
(Jason McNorton) wrote:

>http://www.Intel.com/eBusiness/enabling/itanium.htm

Man, between this and the Athlon I don't know why the hell people pay name
designers.

Say want you will about AIM, but G3, G4 and the like are a lot better than
"Itanium".

--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech

"But simply by putting my hair into a ponytail I transform into the
coolest guy in the office"- Wally, _Dilbert_

Kevin M. Taggart

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to

----------
In article <edremy-0410...@sabot.chem.vt.edu>,
edr...@chemserver.chem.vt.edu (Eric Remy) wrote:


> In article <MPG.1262b9993...@news.itg.ti.com>, jm...@msg.ti.com
> (Jason McNorton) wrote:
>
>>http://www.Intel.com/eBusiness/enabling/itanium.htm
>
> Man, between this and the Athlon I don't know why the hell people pay name
> designers.
>
> Say want you will about AIM, but G3, G4 and the like are a lot better than
> "Itanium".
>

All the proc names that Intel has come up with are retarded. Itanium is,
perhaps, the worst. They should have called it "Titanic" ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
<=\\\=>
--KT

Kraig Finstad

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
In article <7tb3od$k...@news.or.intel.com>, "Kevin M. Taggart"
<ktag...@easytreet.com> wrote:

>
>All the proc names that Intel has come up with are retarded. Itanium is,
>perhaps, the worst. They should have called it "Titanic" ...
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> <=\\\=>
>--KT

But they probably shelled out big bucks to have that first "T" removed
from titanium. In this case, they'd have the Itanic.

-Kraig Finstad

Eric Bennett

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to

> In article <MPG.1262b9993...@news.itg.ti.com>, jm...@msg.ti.com
> (Jason McNorton) wrote:
>
> >http://www.Intel.com/eBusiness/enabling/itanium.htm
>
> Man, between this and the Athlon I don't know why the hell people pay name
> designers.
>
> Say want you will about AIM, but G3, G4 and the like are a lot better than
> "Itanium".

"Velocity Engine"? "AltiVec"?


I still think the idea of having "Pentium II" and "Pentium III" is pretty
goofy, but I guess they do have a stable trademarked name there.

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

Drawing on my fine command of the language, I said nothing.
-Robert Benchley

Lawrence Person

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
Itanium??? With billions of dollars to spend on consultants, the best name
they could come up with was "Itanium"?

This is truly world class stupidity. We're talking New Coke or Cop Rock
level debacle here.

From now on I'm going to refer to the Intel Microprocessor Formerly Known
as Mercad as the Upsidaisium Processor...

--
Lawrence Person
lawr...@bga.com
Lame Excuse Books Now Online at: http://www.abebooks.com
Nova Express Website: http://www.delphi.com/sflit/novaexpress/

Bill Todd

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
I'd kind of lean toward 'Intel Ultimatum' myself, at least if the
performance numbers live up to hype. But then, I don't get paid the big
bucks those marketing types do...

- bill

Lawrence Person <lawr...@bga.com> wrote in message
news:lawrence-041...@apm3-149.realtime.net...

The Lord Of Lemmings

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
In article <ericb-04109...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>,
er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:

>In article <edremy-0410...@sabot.chem.vt.edu>,
>edr...@chemserver.chem.vt.edu (Eric Remy) wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.1262b9993...@news.itg.ti.com>, jm...@msg.ti.com
>> (Jason McNorton) wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.Intel.com/eBusiness/enabling/itanium.htm
>>
>> Man, between this and the Athlon I don't know why the hell people pay name
>> designers.
>>
>> Say want you will about AIM, but G3, G4 and the like are a lot better than
>> "Itanium".
>
>"Velocity Engine"? "AltiVec"?

I refuse to use the former -- it's such marketingspeak. Altivec and
Athlon are cool names, but Itanium is just wierd. I mean, titanium ->
itanium? Where'd the T go? Maybe they're imitating Apple and it'll be
called the iTanium. :)

>I still think the idea of having "Pentium II" and "Pentium III" is pretty
>goofy, but I guess they do have a stable trademarked name there.

Didn't "Pentium" come from the *5*86 designation? And wasn't the Pentium
II technically a 686? (We all know that a PIII is just a faster PII with
SIMD -- of course, a G4 is just a faster 604e with Altivec) So. . .
Sexium?

--
| Scientia Claus, Lord Of Lemmings <am...@cornell.edu> |
|"The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its hexagons|
| and whose circumference is inaccessible." -- Jorge Luis Borges |
|"One feels as if one is dissolved and merged into nature." -- Einstein|

Phil Brewster

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
On Mon, Oct 4, 1999 7:01 PM, Loren Petrich <mailto:pet...@netcom.com>
wrote:
>
> i think it's supposed to be "Information + Titanium".
>
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
>

Given the heat levels being emitted by recent Pentia, perhaps they just
added a pseudo-scientific suffix to the words 'I tan...' to indicate the
new, higher levels of Intel chip performance... ;->


evilsofa

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
In article <7tb3od$k...@news.or.intel.com>, "Kevin M. Taggart"
<ktag...@easytreet.com> wrote:

> All the proc names that Intel has come up with are retarded. Itanium is,
> perhaps, the worst. They should have called it "Titanic" ...
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> <=\\\=>
> --KT

Oh, it's not nearly as bad as Celeron. I mean, what do you get when you
combine celery and a moron?

--
QUESTION AUTHORITY
"Oh yeah? Who _says_ I should question authority, huh?"

jeff

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to
> i think it's supposed to be "Information + Titanium".

"titamation?"" infonium?" they're both better than itanium.
how about "titformation"? :)

jeff

Kevin M. Taggart

unread,
Oct 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/4/99
to

----------
In article <evilsofa-041...@dsl.206.191.149.104.emeraldnet.net>,
evil...@emeraldnet.remove_this_part.net.invalid (evilsofa) wrote:


> In article <7tb3od$k...@news.or.intel.com>, "Kevin M. Taggart"
> <ktag...@easytreet.com> wrote:
>
>> All the proc names that Intel has come up with are retarded. Itanium is,
>> perhaps, the worst. They should have called it "Titanic" ...
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> <=\\\=>
>> --KT
>
> Oh, it's not nearly as bad as Celeron. I mean, what do you get when you
> combine celery and a moron?
>

Nathan Hughes?

--KT

Loren Petrich

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to

i think it's supposed to be "Information + Titanium".

--

Eric Bennett

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
In article <amg39-04109...@r0131.resnet.cornell.edu>,

am...@cornell.edu (The Lord Of Lemmings) wrote:

> >I still think the idea of having "Pentium II" and "Pentium III" is pretty
> >goofy, but I guess they do have a stable trademarked name there.
>
> Didn't "Pentium" come from the *5*86 designation? And wasn't the Pentium
> II technically a 686? (We all know that a PIII is just a faster PII with
> SIMD -- of course, a G4 is just a faster 604e with Altivec) So. . .
> Sexium?

I was expecting the hexium and the septium myself. "Pentium II" stills
seems silly.

viper

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
There is still no public release date on this vapor cpu all they did was
offically announce the chip and give it a new "in very poor taste" name. Its
performace spec that is listed on the site isnt any better than G4..

Intel is just behind the times..
AMD released a 700MHz Athlon today beating the p3 by 100MHZ in clock speed
today. If the current trend with Athlon continues there will be a 1000 MHz
Athlon by Christmas..Love to get that baby in my stocking....:)

Michael R. Hicks

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
In article <ericb-05109...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>,
er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:

> In article <amg39-04109...@r0131.resnet.cornell.edu>,
> am...@cornell.edu (The Lord Of Lemmings) wrote:

[...]

> > Didn't "Pentium" come from the *5*86 designation? And wasn't the Pentium
> > II technically a 686? (We all know that a PIII is just a faster PII with
> > SIMD -- of course, a G4 is just a faster 604e with Altivec) So. . .
> > Sexium?
>
> I was expecting the hexium and the septium myself.

Couldn't call it the latter, then people would joke about
the "deviated..."

> "Pentium II" still seems silly.

Michael R. Hicks
E. Lansing, MI

School of Veterinary Medicine

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
In article <96fK3.18815$MN5.3...@typhoon2.kc.rr.com>, "viper"
<vipe...@mmcable.com> wrote:

Certainly would keep your feet warm.

Kevin Hayes

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
>
> Man, between this and the Athlon I don't know why the hell people pay name
> designers.
>
> Say want you will about AIM, but G3, G4 and the like are a lot better than
> "Itanium".

Sounds like they used the same ad company as Volkswagen. Turbonium, anybody?
At least VW has a cool music track and web site to go with it.
(www.turbonium.com)


Ian Kemmish

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
In article <lawrence-041...@apm3-149.realtime.net>, lawr...@bga.com
says...

>
>Itanium??? With billions of dollars to spend on consultants, the best name
>they could come up with was "Itanium"?

Of course. Expensive consultants only exist to tell you how right you were to
hire expensive consultants. You can't seriously expect them to handle the
added respnsibility of coming up with a sensible name. Even Intel don't earn
enough to afford that....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ian Kemmish 18 Durham Close, Biggleswade, Beds SG18 8HZ, UK
i...@five-d.com Tel: +44 1767 601 361
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Behind every successful organisation stands one person who knows the secret
of how to keep the managers away from anything truly important.


Jarkko Hietaniemi

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to

Does this move accidentally reveal that Intel's true name is 'Tintel'?

--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen

Kyle Sebring

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to

You mean Chiat-Day? Nah.

--
k...@norfolk-county.com
kmsmac on AIM

If there were no Judas,
or there were no Devil,
where would God and his little boy be,
no where I swear.

Bill Daras

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
"viper" <vipe...@mmcable.com> wrote:

> Intel is just behind the times..
> AMD released a 700MHz Athlon today beating the p3 by 100MHZ in clock speed
> today. If the current trend with Athlon continues there will be a 1000 MHz
> Athlon by Christmas..Love to get that baby in my stocking....:)

Don't count on it....after taking a look at one of the heat sinks, it
appears that Santa will risk melting the polar ice caps if you put one on
your list!

Bill Daras,

Jeffrey Boulier

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
In article <alsdkfj-0510...@siamese.vetschool.upenn.edu>,
School of Veterinary Medicine <als...@upenn.edu> wrote:
[ 1 Ghz athlon lust by a former poster]

>Certainly would keep your feet warm.

Not if it came from Kryotech. They're selling a cooled 800 Mhz Athlon
right now, and according to a little press blurb found on their website:

-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
KryoTech Super-G[tm] - Coming December 1999
NEW YORK, NY, April 29, 1999 -- At AMD's 1999 annual shareholders'
meeting, KryoTech and AMD demonstrated a 1GHz (1,000MHz) computer
based on a thermally-accelerated Athlon[tm] processor. KryoTech intends to
ship the Super-G[tm] to customers this year, at speeds up to and including
1GHz....
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-

Followups set.

Yours Truly,
Jeff Boulier

jeff

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
> >Sounds like they used the same ad company as Volkswagen. Turbonium, anybody?
> >At least VW has a cool music track and web site to go with it.
> >(www.turbonium.com)
>
> You mean Chiat-Day? Nah.

what are you talking about? apple's agency is now called tbwa/chiat/day in
playa del rey (the name changed about two years ago). volkswagen's agency
of record is arnold communication in boston. i know it was only a comment
about the naming conventions used in the ads. but i thought i'd clear that
up.

jeff

Steve Nospam

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 18:01:17 -0400, "Bill Daras"
<bill_...@cyberzone.net> wrotf:

Christmas is probably too early... however, the current 700 MHz K7 is
0.25 micron. AMD has demonstrated a 0.18 micron 800 MHz K7
(http://www.ebnews.com/story/OEG19991005S0014). I would expect 800
MHz by Christmas and my prediction for 1 GHz is by next April. It
also appears that AMD stands a chance of winning the race to 1 GHz,
with their only competition being the Alpha.

For all those SPEC fans out there ;-) note that the projected numbers
for the Athlon Ultra 700 are (SPECint95/fp95): 37/42
(http://www.jc-news.com/pc/). The difference between the Ultra and
current K7s are a 266 MHz front side bus (vs. 200), 266 MHz PC2100 DDR
SDRAM (vs. 100 MHz SDRAM), and 1-2 MB full-speed (but off-chip) L2
cache (vs. 512-KB half-speed L2). The Athlon Ultra will apparently be
available early next year.

For comparison:

700 MHz Alpha: 39.1/68.1
700 MHz Athlon Ultra (2 MB?): 37/42 (projected)
700 MHz Athlon: 31.7/24
550 MHz Xeon (1 MB): 24.4/17.3
600 MHz PIII: 24.0/15.9
450 MHz G4: 21.4/20.4 (estimated)

(http://www.amd.com/athlon/benchmarks/specint.html)
(http://www.amd.com/athlon/benchmarks/specfp.html)
(http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu95/results/res99q3/)


-Steve

*The only thing certain about the future is that it hasn't happened yet.*

Scott Hess

unread,
Oct 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/5/99
to
In article <lawrence-041...@apm3-149.realtime.net>,

lawr...@bga.com (Lawrence Person) writes:
Itanium??? With billions of dollars to spend on consultants, the
best name they could come up with was "Itanium"?

You're just spelling it wrong. It should be "iTanium", brought to you
by iNtel.

[When you see a bandwagon - jump on it!]
--
scott hess <sc...@doubleu.com> (408) 739-8858 http://www.doubleu.com/
<Favorite unused computer book title: The Compleat Demystified Idiots
Guide to the Zen of Dummies in a Nutshell in Seven Days, Unleashed>

Mark Thorson

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
In article <lawrence-041...@apm3-149.realtime.net>,

Lawrence Person <lawr...@bga.com> wrote:
>Itanium??? With billions of dollars to spend on consultants, the best name
>they could come up with was "Itanium"?

My theory is that the name department has been taken over
by hackers. Choosing "Inanium" or "Stupidium" would have
been too obvious. This was the best they could do.

Excellent work, boys! Love your work on "Agilent", too!

Sander Vesik

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
In comp.arch Jarkko Hietaniemi <j...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:

> Does this move accidentally reveal that Intel's true name is 'Tintel'?

Could be, but it definately does reveal the marketing names for several
SMP combinations featuring merced/itanium processors:

2P: Ditanium
4P: Qitanium
8P: Oitanium
16P: Hitanium

8-))))

Paul Wallich

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to
In article <93922477...@haldjas.folklore.ee>, Sander Vesik
<san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:

>In comp.arch Jarkko Hietaniemi <j...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
>
>> Does this move accidentally reveal that Intel's true name is 'Tintel'?
>
>Could be, but it definately does reveal the marketing names for several
>SMP combinations featuring merced/itanium processors:
>
>2P: Ditanium
>4P: Qitanium
>8P: Oitanium
>16P: Hitanium

And McKinley, aka Merced 2 = Retanium?

Jeffrey Boulier

unread,
Oct 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/6/99
to

I was thinking it was more latinate:

1P: itanium
2P: iitanium
4P: ivtanium
8P: viiitanium
16P: xvitanium

Yours Truly,
Jeff Boulier

Charles Martin

unread,
Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99
to

> Man, between this and the Athlon I don't know why the hell people pay name
> designers.
>
> Say want you will about AIM, but G3, G4 and the like are a lot better than
> "Itanium".

They're also a lot "cooler" in both sense of the word. Sure, some
nothing-to-lose Wintel chip maker will probably be first with the 1GHz
chip because they've attached an about-to-go-nova 800 MHz chip to the
cooling unit they use to keep Walt Disney's head frozen, but so what?

Moto has said (in their most recent roadmap) that they expect to be
producing 2GHz chips by the end of 2000. And those WON'T need their own
discreet refrigerator to operate safely.

Chas

Charles Martin

unread,
Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99
to
In article <amg39-04109...@r0131.resnet.cornell.edu>,
am...@cornell.edu (The Lord Of Lemmings) wrote:

> Didn't "Pentium" come from the *5*86 designation? And wasn't the Pentium
> II technically a 686? (We all know that a PIII is just a faster PII with
> SIMD -- of course, a G4 is just a faster 604e with Altivec) So. . .
> Sexium?

Now if INTEL had thought of this, I think even WE would be lauding them. :)

Chas

David T. Wang

unread,
Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99
to
Charles Martin (cha...@bigFUCKSPAMfoot.com) wrote:
: edr...@chemserver.chem.vt.edu (Eric Remy) wrote:

2 GHz by the end of 2000? A microprocessor or a communication co-processor?

--
main(){char *a[]={"Illogical.","Balderdash.","Non sequitur.","Incorrect.",
"See what I mean?","Irrelevant.","Poppycock."};for(;;)puts(a[rand()%7]);}

Charles Martin

unread,
Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99
to
In article <37FA30E7...@Dal.Ca>, Kevin Hayes <Kevin...@Dal.Ca> wrote:

> >
> > Man, between this and the Athlon I don't know why the hell people pay name
> > designers.
> >
> > Say want you will about AIM, but G3, G4 and the like are a lot better than
> > "Itanium".
>

> Sounds like they used the same ad company as Volkswagen. Turbonium, anybody?
> At least VW has a cool music track and web site to go with it.
> (www.turbonium.com)

That head you see rolling around the floor at Intel is the guy who failed
to get "Turbonium" trademarked before VW did.

Chas

Steve Nospam

unread,
Oct 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/7/99
to
On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 00:35:36 GMT, cha...@bigFUCKSPAMfoot.com (Charles
Martin) wrotf:

>In article <edremy-0410...@sabot.chem.vt.edu>,

>> Man, between this and the Athlon I don't know why the hell people pay name
>> designers.
>>
>> Say want you will about AIM, but G3, G4 and the like are a lot better than
>> "Itanium".
>

>They're also a lot "cooler" in both sense of the word. Sure, some
>nothing-to-lose Wintel chip maker will probably be first with the 1GHz
>chip because they've attached an about-to-go-nova 800 MHz chip to the
>cooling unit they use to keep Walt Disney's head frozen, but so what?

AMD and Alpha will be in a race to 1 GHz and I now think that AMD will
win... that is 1 GHz with standard air cooling only. I'm amused by
all the people that are so used to low Moto clock speeds that they
seem to think that it's impossible for any other company to develop
faster clockspeed processors.

>Moto has said (in their most recent roadmap) that they expect to be
>producing 2GHz chips by the end of 2000. And those WON'T need their own
>discreet refrigerator to operate safely.

LOL! Moto did not say any such thing (not to speak of the fact that
neither the Alpha nor the K7 need refrigeration to run at 700 MHz
today, and won't need refrigeration to run at 1 GHz in another 6
months or so, given upcoming process shrinks). First of all, the Moto
roadmap is extremely vague with no actual years given for products
(they only list 1991 and 200x at each end of the graph). In addition,
you are probably confusing what they claim will be the ultimate speed
of the G5 vs. when it will be introduced. It will be a real struggle
for Moto to even reach 1 GHz by the end of next year IMO. Apparently,
the current G4 can't even make 700 MHz because the pipelines are too
short.

Of course this claim is another along the same lines as those who
claimed that Moto would be over 1 GHz by the end of this year or at
least by mid-2000 (and that fits right in line with my claim that if
you cut most Mac performance claims in half, that's usually closer to
reality).

How about this blast from the past?:

"Intel has abandoned the twenty-year-old x86 architecture. The Xeon is
the end of the line. Although Intel has managed (at the cost of huge
power consumption and Chernobyl-level heat radiation) to push the x86
series up to around half a GHz, that's it. Hit the wall. ... So while
Moore's Law steams ahead on the Motorola/Apple side, INTEL WILL NOT
HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER PROCESSOR THAN THE CURRENT STATE OF THE
ART FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS."
(http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=418725566&CONTEXT=939258689.314572850&hitnum=58)

or this one?

"The single-processor versions [of the G4] will range between 400-600
MHz, with 700MHz scheduled for December and 1 GHz for mid-2000.)
(http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=443751075&CONTEXT=939258689.314572850&hitnum=50)

or this one?:

"Also the G4 will feature the copper fabrication process, and it's
expected that G4 will reach and break the one gigahertz clock speed
mark by the end of 1999."
cited in
(http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=444422207&CONTEXT=939258689.314572850&hitnum=48)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages