By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), October 6, 2013 9:13 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Kevin G (kevin.delete@this.cubitdesigns.com) on October 6, 2013 8:55 am wrote:
> David Hess (davidwhess.delete@this.gmail.com) on October 5, 2013 6:35 pm wrote:
> > Kevin G (kevin.delete@this.cubitdesigns.com) on September 27, 2013 9:47 am wrote:
> > > David Hess (davidwhess.delete@this.gmail.com) on September 27, 2013 8:06 am wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As measured by how many competing RISC architectures bit
> > > > the dust, Itanium could be considered a success even
> > > > while languishing. ARM threatens Intel now having followed the same path Intel took through the low end to
> > > > threaten established microprocessors that held the workstation, minicomputer, and mainframe markets.
> > >
> > > Well two of competing RISC architectures, PA-RISC and DEC Alpha, were killed off due to
> > > internal business politics of the HP-Compaq merger. HP phased out PA-RISC themselves but
> > > Alpha was spun off from Compaq to avoid FTC botching the merger. Compaq, partially to
> > > avoid more oversight with the pending HP merger, sold off the Alpha line to Intel.
> > >
> > > That left POWER/PowerPC under the AIM alliance, the declining MIPS, SPARC under Sun in the desktop/server
> > > markets. Of those, MIPs floats around in the embedded market now where as the ARM has emerged
> > > from the embedded market to be a potential player in mainstream computing. PowerPC lost Apple,
> > > lost the console market and POWER exists as IBM's server chip of choice. SPARC nearly died as
> > > Sun spiraled downward only to have a recent renaissance under Oracle.
> > >
> > > Itanium in retrospect managed to gain the share of the computing market that was once reserved for the
> > > two architectures that were deprecated in its favor. Had
> > > PA-RISC and Alpha users not been given a migration
> > > path to Itanium, its place in the market would have been killed off when x86-64 arrived.
> >
> > MIPS and Alpha were still used in workstations when Itanium was announced though, weren't they?
> >
> > What I remember is the announcement of Itanium either sinking the sales of the workstation
> > processors that it was going to compete with or intimidating those companies into freezing
> > development. Compaq (Alpha) and Silicon Graphics (MIPS) were who I was thinking of.
>
> The workstation market was starting to migrate to x86 when Itanium first shipped, partially because Intel had
> a migration plan from x86 to Itanium down the road. Though when Itanium was announced, Alpha based and MIPs
> based workstations were indeed popular. In fact, I have an old Alpha AXP system floating around my place.
Alpha workstations were far less popular than SPARC or even PA-RISC workstations; not sure how it compared to RS/6000 which also didn't sell too well.
Demand was so low that around 1999 Compaq (or still Digital?) stopped designing new workstation models and instead started to sell small servers with "desktop kits" as workstations.
Later on, the rest of RISC vendors followed the same path, but Alpha was the first to give up on separate design, years before the rest.
>
> Silicon Graphics did announce support for Itanium rather early and shipped several workstations
> based upon it.
I don't think so. I remember one huge deskside model, but nothing desktop. And this deskside was too expensive to be called workstation.
> They're one of the few companies that phased out a RISC architecture
> in favor of Itanium who didn't have some sort of ties to the Itanium design.
> David Hess (davidwhess.delete@this.gmail.com) on October 5, 2013 6:35 pm wrote:
> > Kevin G (kevin.delete@this.cubitdesigns.com) on September 27, 2013 9:47 am wrote:
> > > David Hess (davidwhess.delete@this.gmail.com) on September 27, 2013 8:06 am wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As measured by how many competing RISC architectures bit
> > > > the dust, Itanium could be considered a success even
> > > > while languishing. ARM threatens Intel now having followed the same path Intel took through the low end to
> > > > threaten established microprocessors that held the workstation, minicomputer, and mainframe markets.
> > >
> > > Well two of competing RISC architectures, PA-RISC and DEC Alpha, were killed off due to
> > > internal business politics of the HP-Compaq merger. HP phased out PA-RISC themselves but
> > > Alpha was spun off from Compaq to avoid FTC botching the merger. Compaq, partially to
> > > avoid more oversight with the pending HP merger, sold off the Alpha line to Intel.
> > >
> > > That left POWER/PowerPC under the AIM alliance, the declining MIPS, SPARC under Sun in the desktop/server
> > > markets. Of those, MIPs floats around in the embedded market now where as the ARM has emerged
> > > from the embedded market to be a potential player in mainstream computing. PowerPC lost Apple,
> > > lost the console market and POWER exists as IBM's server chip of choice. SPARC nearly died as
> > > Sun spiraled downward only to have a recent renaissance under Oracle.
> > >
> > > Itanium in retrospect managed to gain the share of the computing market that was once reserved for the
> > > two architectures that were deprecated in its favor. Had
> > > PA-RISC and Alpha users not been given a migration
> > > path to Itanium, its place in the market would have been killed off when x86-64 arrived.
> >
> > MIPS and Alpha were still used in workstations when Itanium was announced though, weren't they?
> >
> > What I remember is the announcement of Itanium either sinking the sales of the workstation
> > processors that it was going to compete with or intimidating those companies into freezing
> > development. Compaq (Alpha) and Silicon Graphics (MIPS) were who I was thinking of.
>
> The workstation market was starting to migrate to x86 when Itanium first shipped, partially because Intel had
> a migration plan from x86 to Itanium down the road. Though when Itanium was announced, Alpha based and MIPs
> based workstations were indeed popular. In fact, I have an old Alpha AXP system floating around my place.
Alpha workstations were far less popular than SPARC or even PA-RISC workstations; not sure how it compared to RS/6000 which also didn't sell too well.
Demand was so low that around 1999 Compaq (or still Digital?) stopped designing new workstation models and instead started to sell small servers with "desktop kits" as workstations.
Later on, the rest of RISC vendors followed the same path, but Alpha was the first to give up on separate design, years before the rest.
>
> Silicon Graphics did announce support for Itanium rather early and shipped several workstations
> based upon it.
I don't think so. I remember one huge deskside model, but nothing desktop. And this deskside was too expensive to be called workstation.
> They're one of the few companies that phased out a RISC architecture
> in favor of Itanium who didn't have some sort of ties to the Itanium design.
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | jose | 2013/09/23 04:43 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/23 07:38 AM |
graphics and disk matter too | RichardC | 2013/09/23 12:23 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Jose | 2013/09/24 06:56 AM |
Previous CPU transitions | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/24 07:20 AM |
Previous CPU transitions | Ronald Maas | 2013/09/24 10:21 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 09:16 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Patrick Chase | 2013/09/23 09:43 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/23 09:46 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Patrick Chase | 2013/09/23 10:17 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Gabriele Svelto | 2013/09/23 10:24 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Patrick Chase | 2013/09/23 10:40 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/23 12:42 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Patrick Chase | 2013/09/23 06:47 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/23 09:43 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 10:03 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/23 10:25 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 10:44 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/23 11:02 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/23 12:57 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/23 03:56 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Ricardo B | 2013/09/24 12:32 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Martin Høyer Kristiansen | 2013/09/23 01:30 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Niels Jørgen Kruse | 2013/09/23 11:09 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 05:09 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/23 12:03 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/23 04:27 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/23 04:39 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 05:22 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/24 08:13 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/24 10:24 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/24 10:41 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/24 05:54 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/24 09:52 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Kira | 2013/09/25 06:07 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/25 06:15 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Kira | 2013/09/25 06:21 AM |
Does Secure64 sell hardware? | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/25 08:18 AM |
Does Secure64 sell hardware? | Kira | 2013/09/25 09:18 AM |
Turns out they do rx2800 now. (NT) | Kira | 2013/09/25 09:20 AM |
Thanks again. RWT has some knowledgeable posters! (NT) | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/25 01:38 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/25 09:34 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/25 05:10 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/25 08:15 PM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/27 08:11 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/27 05:37 PM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/28 09:43 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/26 03:06 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Gabriele Svelto | 2013/09/26 03:35 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Kira | 2013/09/26 04:18 PM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 08:08 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/27 08:20 AM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 08:56 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Linus Torvalds | 2013/09/27 12:00 PM |
i960 | someone | 2013/09/27 01:06 PM |
i960 | Michael S | 2013/09/28 09:47 AM |
i960 | JS | 2013/09/29 02:43 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/28 10:00 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 10:51 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/28 11:59 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 12:43 PM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/28 08:53 PM |
The decline of Itanium | gallier2 | 2013/09/30 01:06 AM |
x86 MCUs | Michael S | 2013/09/30 02:13 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/27 09:52 AM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 11:29 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Kira | 2013/09/27 10:19 AM |
oops - HC 1999, not 19 (NT) | Kira | 2013/09/27 11:04 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/27 08:06 AM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 08:25 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Linus Torvalds | 2013/09/27 10:07 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/27 06:09 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/27 07:07 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/27 09:12 PM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/28 06:02 AM |
Laptop Design | David Hess | 2013/09/28 10:58 AM |
Laptop Design | Brett | 2013/09/28 03:14 PM |
Laptop Design | David Hess | 2013/09/28 08:35 PM |
Laptop Design | anon | 2013/09/30 02:11 AM |
Laptop Design | Brett | 2013/09/30 06:02 PM |
Laptop Design | RichardC | 2013/09/28 05:14 PM |
Laptop Design | David Hess | 2013/09/28 08:40 PM |
Laptop Design | Michael S | 2013/09/29 03:21 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/28 11:23 AM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/29 05:52 AM |
PS2 | Konrad Schwarz | 2013/09/30 12:53 AM |
PS2 | none | 2013/09/30 01:19 AM |
PS2 | Doug S | 2013/09/30 11:09 AM |
PS2 | sysanon | 2013/09/30 05:09 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Megol | 2013/09/29 06:35 AM |
Apple's innovations | RichardC | 2013/09/29 07:00 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Brett | 2013/09/29 02:56 PM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/29 06:00 PM |
Apple's innovations | Brett | 2013/10/10 08:20 PM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/28 05:44 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Ricardo B | 2013/09/28 05:23 PM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/29 04:51 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Ricardo B | 2013/09/29 08:27 AM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/29 12:28 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Ricardo B | 2013/09/29 04:00 PM |
The decline of Itanium | RichardC | 2013/09/29 06:07 PM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/30 07:04 AM |
The decline of Intel | RichardC | 2013/09/30 07:19 AM |
The decline of Intel | Kevin G | 2013/09/30 10:53 AM |
The decline of Intel | RichardC | 2013/09/30 11:13 AM |
The decline of Intel | Kevin G | 2013/10/02 09:11 AM |
The decline of Intel | tarlinian | 2013/10/02 09:27 AM |
The decline of Intel | Kevin G | 2013/10/04 10:24 AM |
450mm and EUV insertion | David Kanter | 2013/10/04 11:24 AM |
450mm and EUV insertion | tarlinian | 2013/10/04 12:23 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | Anonym | 2013/10/04 11:39 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | tarlinian | 2013/10/05 10:18 AM |
450mm and EUV insertion | Anonym | 2013/10/05 12:51 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | tarlinian | 2013/10/05 01:42 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | Anonym | 2013/10/05 03:35 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | tarlinian | 2013/10/05 04:21 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | David Kanter | 2013/10/07 01:48 PM |
450mm and EUV insertion | Kevin G | 2013/10/05 05:50 AM |
The decline of Intel | Brett | 2013/09/30 06:11 PM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/01 05:52 AM |
The decline of Intel | anon | 2013/10/01 06:27 AM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/01 07:13 AM |
The decline of Intel | mas | 2013/10/01 04:46 PM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/02 12:26 AM |
The decline of Intel | anon | 2013/10/02 02:05 AM |
The decline of Intel | none | 2013/10/02 02:18 AM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/02 02:35 AM |
The decline of Intel | anon | 2013/10/02 02:57 AM |
The decline of Intel | Doug S | 2013/10/02 10:08 AM |
The decline of Intel | mas | 2013/10/02 10:40 AM |
The decline of Intel | Doug S | 2013/10/02 07:32 PM |
The decline of Intel | David Kanter | 2013/10/02 10:17 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | David Kanter | 2013/10/02 04:17 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | Maynard Handley | 2013/10/02 05:59 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | tarlinian | 2013/10/02 06:13 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | Anon | 2013/10/03 12:15 AM |
Intel vs. industry gap | tarlinian | 2013/10/03 09:01 AM |
Intel vs. industry gap | David Kanter | 2013/10/02 10:10 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | Doug S | 2013/10/03 09:59 AM |
Intel vs. industry gap | anon | 2013/10/03 04:12 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | Doug S | 2013/10/03 04:56 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | anon | 2013/10/03 05:48 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | anonymou5 | 2013/10/03 05:59 PM |
Intel vs. industry gap | mas | 2013/10/04 01:10 AM |
The decline of Intel | Klimax | 2013/10/02 03:46 AM |
The decline of Intel | anon | 2013/10/02 02:53 AM |
The decline of Intel | tarlinian | 2013/10/02 09:24 AM |
The decline of Intel | David Kanter | 2013/10/01 09:06 AM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/02 12:09 AM |
The decline of Intel | tarlinian | 2013/10/02 08:58 AM |
The decline of Intel | David Kanter | 2013/10/02 10:45 AM |
The decline of Intel | Purana Archer | 2013/10/04 06:38 AM |
The decline of Intel | David Kanter | 2013/10/05 12:41 AM |
The decline of Intel | Kevin G | 2013/10/05 08:14 AM |
The decline of Intel | Niels Jørgen Kruse | 2013/10/05 12:49 PM |
The decline of Intel | Kevin G | 2013/10/06 08:45 AM |
The decline of Intel | Doug S | 2013/10/06 10:11 PM |
The decline of Intel | Niels Jørgen Kruse | 2013/10/07 06:14 AM |
The decline of Intel | Doug S | 2013/10/07 04:36 PM |
Tool Reuse, CAPEX Efficiency | Anonym | 2013/10/02 01:37 PM |
Tool Reuse, CAPEX Efficiency | tarlinian | 2013/10/02 03:55 PM |
capex spending | Doug S | 2013/10/01 12:06 PM |
Reducing Intel's lead with less than twice the spending?? | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/10/01 05:27 PM |
Reducing Intel's lead with less than twice the spending?? | anon | 2013/10/01 08:07 PM |
Reducing Intel's lead with less than twice the spending?? | mas | 2013/10/01 11:04 PM |
Reducing Intel's lead with less than twice the spending?? | mas | 2013/10/01 11:06 PM |
Reducing Intel's lead with less than twice the spending?? | mas | 2013/10/01 11:06 PM |
Intel fabs on 22nm | Alberto | 2013/10/01 03:23 AM |
The decline of Intel | mas | 2013/10/01 04:24 PM |
The decline of Intel | anon | 2013/09/30 06:00 PM |
The decline of Itanium | David Kanter | 2013/09/29 11:19 PM |
competitive market | RichardC | 2013/09/30 06:33 AM |
competitive market | David Kanter | 2013/09/30 08:39 AM |
competitive market | RichardC | 2013/09/30 09:08 AM |
competitive market | David Kanter | 2013/09/30 12:08 PM |
competitive market | RichardC | 2013/09/30 02:00 PM |
competitive market | Anon | 2013/10/03 12:34 AM |
competitive market | Doug S | 2013/09/30 11:13 AM |
competitive market | RichardC | 2013/09/30 11:28 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Kevin G | 2013/09/27 10:07 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/27 11:30 AM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 12:00 PM |
The decline of Itanium | TREZA | 2013/09/27 01:50 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Megol | 2013/09/28 12:52 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/27 05:03 PM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/28 03:22 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/28 09:00 AM |
That's BS | David Kanter | 2013/09/28 09:22 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/28 05:15 PM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 09:01 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 09:06 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Kevin G | 2013/09/29 11:06 AM |
Apple has 2-3 CPU design teams | David Kanter | 2013/09/29 11:39 AM |
The End of Moore's Law | hobold | 2013/09/30 03:00 AM |
Lower cost to process scaling can no longer be assumed. | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/30 10:50 AM |
Lower cost to process scaling can no longer be assumed. | David Kanter | 2013/09/30 01:41 PM |
Lower cost to process scaling can no longer be assumed. | EduardoS | 2013/09/30 02:05 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/30 03:15 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | mas | 2013/09/30 08:09 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Doug S | 2013/09/30 08:16 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | mas | 2013/09/30 09:05 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Doug S | 2013/10/01 12:28 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | mas | 2013/10/01 04:20 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Doug S | 2013/10/01 08:51 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Exophase | 2013/10/01 01:03 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | mas | 2013/10/01 04:17 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Exophase | 2013/10/01 10:18 PM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Doug S | 2013/10/02 10:18 AM |
Shouldn't the customers have *SOME* reason to move to the new process? | Exophase | 2013/10/02 10:28 AM |
Lower cost to process scaling can no longer be assumed. | tarlinian | 2013/09/30 07:02 PM |
Lower cost to process scaling can no longer be assumed. | David Kanter | 2013/09/30 09:20 PM |
The End of Moore's Law | Greg Gritton | 2013/10/01 09:11 AM |
The End of Moore's Law | Kevin G | 2013/10/02 10:48 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Foo_ | 2013/09/28 08:50 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Ricardo B | 2013/09/28 04:17 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Dan Fay | 2013/09/27 02:51 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 10:58 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/28 11:39 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 01:11 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Dan Fay | 2013/09/28 03:38 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/28 05:09 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Dan Fay | 2013/09/28 05:59 PM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 06:45 AM |
The decline of Itanium | none | 2013/09/29 07:10 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | mas | 2013/09/29 07:31 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | none | 2013/09/29 07:40 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | mas | 2013/09/29 08:11 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | mas | 2013/09/29 08:16 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | Doug S | 2013/09/29 11:13 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | mas | 2013/09/29 11:59 AM |
Bay Trail die cost | RichardC | 2013/10/01 06:20 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/29 08:59 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 09:16 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 09:31 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/29 09:48 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 11:12 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/29 11:53 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 12:11 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/29 03:15 PM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 11:28 PM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/30 01:26 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/30 07:20 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/30 08:04 PM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/30 08:42 PM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/30 11:32 PM |
The decline of Itanium | David Kanter | 2013/10/01 12:43 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/10/01 02:37 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Kanter | 2013/10/01 09:17 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/10/01 01:54 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/10/01 02:39 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/30 04:26 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/29 03:08 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/29 04:50 PM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 11:42 PM |
Semiconductor realities | David Kanter | 2013/09/30 11:30 AM |
Restricted rules for initial process use at foundries? | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/30 04:33 PM |
Restricted rules for initial process use at foundries? | Ricardo B | 2013/10/01 12:47 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | mas | 2013/10/02 12:10 PM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | RichardC | 2013/10/03 08:51 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | mas | 2013/10/03 09:41 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | RichardC | 2013/10/03 10:56 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | Michael S | 2013/10/03 10:58 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | RichardC | 2013/10/03 11:07 AM |
cheap would be in kindle fire | RichardC | 2013/10/03 11:12 AM |
$150 7" 800p Z2580 Dell Venue 7 | none | 2013/10/03 11:13 AM |
Samsung Galaxy Tab battery life | Michael S | 2013/10/03 02:18 PM |
Samsung Galaxy Tab battery life | none | 2013/10/03 03:17 PM |
Samsung Galaxy Tab battery life | Exophase | 2013/10/03 03:42 PM |
The decline of Itanium | none | 2013/09/29 02:15 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/29 11:25 AM |
The decline of Itanium | mas | 2013/09/29 12:23 PM |
Qualcomm? | David Kanter | 2013/09/29 11:45 PM |
Qualcomm? | none | 2013/09/30 01:36 AM |
Qualcomm? | Alberto | 2013/10/01 09:03 AM |
Qualcomm? | Alberto | 2013/10/01 01:03 PM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | Thu | 2013/09/28 08:52 PM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | Michael S | 2013/09/29 02:24 AM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/29 09:41 AM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | bakaneko | 2013/09/29 10:44 AM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | Linus Torvalds | 2013/09/29 02:22 PM |
A7 much faster at graphics than BayTrail | none | 2013/09/29 03:37 PM |
The decline of Itanium | anoanon | 2013/09/28 04:14 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Doug S | 2013/09/28 11:44 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/09/28 09:31 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Kevin G | 2013/09/27 09:47 AM |
The decline of Itanium | David Hess | 2013/10/05 06:35 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Kevin G | 2013/10/06 08:55 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/10/06 09:13 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/27 10:10 AM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 12:24 PM |
The decline of Itanium | EduardoS | 2013/09/27 01:39 PM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/27 02:38 PM |
The decline of Itanium | EduardoS | 2013/09/27 03:49 PM |
The decline of Itanium | someone | 2013/09/28 09:20 AM |
The decline of Itanium | EduardoS | 2013/09/28 11:05 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/27 09:22 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/28 12:45 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/28 03:08 AM |
The decline of Itanium | EduardoS | 2013/09/28 11:08 AM |
The decline of Itanium | anon | 2013/09/28 05:17 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/29 03:29 AM |
The decline of Itanium | bakaneko | 2013/09/27 01:41 PM |
Difficulty of measuring performance from Architecture | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/27 03:23 PM |
Difficulty of measuring performance from Architecture | someone | 2013/09/27 04:46 PM |
Difficulty of measuring performance from Architecture | EduardoS | 2013/09/27 04:52 PM |
Difficulty of measuring performance from Architecture | someone | 2013/09/27 05:10 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/27 05:09 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 11:19 AM |
why did you exclude EV7? | Michael S | 2013/09/28 11:16 AM |
why did you exclude EV7? | slacker | 2013/09/28 08:37 PM |
why did you exclude EV7? | Michael S | 2013/09/29 12:50 AM |
Wasn't Athlon XP also copper interconnect? (NT) | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/29 10:06 AM |
Wasn't Athlon XP also copper interconnect? | slacker | 2013/09/29 03:17 PM |
Was the SPEC CPU2000 result CU or Al? | Paul A. Clayton | 2013/09/30 05:14 PM |
Was the SPEC CPU2000 result CU or Al? | slacker | 2013/10/01 02:48 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Ricardo B | 2013/09/28 04:23 PM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/29 03:46 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Megol | 2013/09/27 11:02 AM |
The decline of Itanium | Michael S | 2013/09/28 01:31 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Simon Farnsworth | 2013/09/25 04:06 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 04:22 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Simon Farnsworth | 2013/09/25 05:32 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 05:59 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | David Kanter | 2013/09/25 01:26 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 05:32 PM |
future of eDRAM | bakaneko | 2013/09/25 06:58 AM |
future of eDRAM | anon | 2013/09/25 07:43 AM |
future of eDRAM | bakaneko | 2013/09/25 09:00 AM |
future of eDRAM | anon | 2013/09/25 09:24 AM |
future of eDRAM | bakaneko | 2013/09/25 11:46 AM |
future of eDRAM | anon | 2013/09/25 05:39 PM |
future of eDRAM | bakaneko | 2013/09/26 10:51 AM |
future of eDRAM | David Kanter | 2013/09/28 10:29 AM |
future of eDRAM | bakaneko | 2013/09/27 05:23 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Kevin G | 2013/09/25 07:18 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 08:02 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/25 10:23 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 10:59 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Niels Jørgen Kruse | 2013/09/25 11:59 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/25 12:46 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/25 02:15 PM |
POWER8 has 8 threads per core | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/25 04:18 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | someone | 2013/09/25 08:07 AM |
Thanks, very informative (NT) | anon | 2013/09/25 08:11 AM |
Keep in mind IBM has eDRAM elsewhere than POWER (NT) | anon | 2013/09/25 11:03 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | RichardC | 2013/09/25 07:12 AM |
It isn't just memory controllers | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/25 09:09 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Foo_ | 2013/09/24 12:52 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Drazick | 2013/09/23 10:29 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/23 11:55 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Drazick | 2013/09/23 12:00 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/23 04:01 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/23 05:31 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/23 07:34 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Alberto | 2013/09/24 01:11 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Wilco | 2013/09/24 06:17 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/24 08:44 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 01:56 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | none | 2013/09/25 02:50 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 03:06 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Wilco | 2013/09/25 03:14 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/09/25 03:28 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/25 04:24 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | none | 2013/09/25 04:55 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | EduardoS | 2013/09/25 02:07 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/25 10:01 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Alberto | 2013/09/25 01:12 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/25 02:23 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Wilco | 2013/09/25 02:45 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Linus Torvalds | 2013/09/25 05:49 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Michael S | 2013/09/26 10:52 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/26 11:51 AM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/26 01:04 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Doug S | 2013/09/26 02:07 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Mark Roulo | 2013/09/26 03:06 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Doug S | 2013/09/26 06:21 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | rwessel | 2013/09/26 06:44 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | sysanon | 2013/09/27 04:33 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Doug S | 2013/09/27 06:29 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | sysanon | 2013/09/27 08:36 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | Doug S | 2013/09/27 09:07 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | anonymou5 | 2013/09/28 12:58 AM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | J.Random Webmasta | 2013/09/28 01:11 AM |
Slow with Core i7 920 | Jouni Osmala | 2013/09/26 11:25 PM |
Animated GIF seems slow on iPads | NoSpammer | 2013/09/27 01:13 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/26 01:18 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/26 02:19 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/26 02:35 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/09/26 03:11 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/09/26 06:31 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/09/27 11:02 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | David W | 2013/09/27 01:47 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | David Kanter | 2013/09/28 10:09 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | David Hess | 2013/09/28 10:21 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Michael S | 2013/09/28 11:00 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | David Hess | 2013/09/28 11:27 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | bakaneko | 2013/09/28 12:11 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Michael S | 2013/09/28 12:50 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | EduardoS | 2013/09/28 01:50 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Michael S | 2013/09/28 02:05 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Doug S | 2013/09/28 05:15 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | David Hess | 2013/09/28 08:03 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Gabriele Svelto | 2013/09/30 04:23 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Jukka Larja | 2013/09/30 07:23 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Doug S | 2013/09/30 08:19 PM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Jukka Larja | 2013/10/01 04:55 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Rob Thorpe | 2013/10/01 08:26 AM |
Firefox PDF reader (re: Charlie re: Apple and ARM) | Michael S | 2013/10/01 01:53 PM |
Adobe Acrobat reader start up time | Michael S | 2013/10/02 01:19 AM |
Adobe Acrobat reader start up time | bdcrazy | 2013/10/11 06:28 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Rob Thorpe | 2013/10/01 08:14 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | j | 2013/10/01 11:12 AM |
There are two of us (or three) | Mark Roulo | 2013/10/01 01:15 PM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Rob Thorpe | 2013/10/01 04:05 PM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Symmetry | 2013/10/02 12:51 PM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Doug S | 2013/10/02 07:44 PM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | rwessel | 2013/10/02 11:21 PM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Clemens Ladisch | 2013/10/03 12:20 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | rwessel | 2013/10/03 01:12 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Symmetry | 2013/10/03 06:19 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Gabriele Svelto | 2013/10/03 02:05 AM |
Firefox PDF reader - am I the only person who likes the default | Doug S | 2013/10/03 10:15 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/09/26 02:59 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Maynard Handley | 2013/09/26 03:53 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/10/01 10:55 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Linus Torvalds | 2013/09/26 08:15 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/10/01 10:45 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/10/02 10:14 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | John Poole | 2013/10/02 10:03 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | anon | 2013/10/03 12:00 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Doug S | 2013/10/03 10:08 AM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Alberto | 2013/09/25 01:50 PM |
Charlie re: Apple and ARM | Ronald Maas | 2013/09/24 10:39 PM |