Supporting 64-bit ARM systems

Posted Jul 11, 2012 2:59 UTC (Wed) by ringerc (subscriber, #3071)
In reply to: Supporting 64-bit ARM systems by ringerc
Parent article: Supporting 64-bit ARM systems

For an example of insanely expensive packaging, check this image of an Itanium 2 CPU assembly out.

Compare to this Intel Pentium III Coppermine CPU package.

It isn't hard to see part of why Itanium struggled even before AMD came along with AMD64 and finished it off.

Have a look at the Intel price list for some of the Itanium family. Do you really think they're that much better than a Core i7 or the Xeon variants? I don't. Sure, those are current prices not historical ones from the time when itanium used to be almost-relevant, but the prices then were at least as bad.

Also, notice how the TDP ratings on those parts are absolutely nuts? Some of those parts dissapate 180W and cost nearly $4k in bulk! You aren't going to get many of those into a rack, not least because the CPU packages are so physically huge as well. Now there are further disincentives like the lack of AESNI instructions in Itanium.

Supporting 64-bit ARM systems

Posted Jul 11, 2012 8:23 UTC (Wed) by jengelh (guest, #33263) [Link]

>Also, notice how the TDP ratings on those parts are absolutely nuts? Some of those parts dissapate 180W and cost nearly $4k in bulk!

Well, it was about the P4-Netburst time, so the TDP is... accurate :)
As for the prices, the enterprise segment is never understandable to mortal users: the $4k price tag does not even include a next-day replacement service.