32 or 64??

[Chan Chung Hang Christopher]

Odd wrote:
> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>> Odd wrote:
>>> Christopher Chan wrote:
> -snip-
>>>> and loath though I am to 
>>>> make mention of it, the Itanium was NOT specifically engineered to be 
>>>> able to run 32-bit x86 software natively. Neither the Alpha nor the 
>>>> Sparc/MIPS? nor PowerPC/PPC.
>>> I see I should have taken into account the people whose ability to
>>> connect the dots from one post to the next is lacking. Let me spell it out
>>> then:
>>>
>>> "The 64bit architecture we're talking about, AMD64, was engineered
>>> specifically to be able to run 32bit x86 software natively."
>>>
>>> Now, is that clearer? That's what people are talking about in this
>>> thread. Not Itanium, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS, PPC, Power, or what have you.
>>>
>>  >:P
>>
>> Lost me chance to do some Itanium bashing. Ah well.
> 
> Hehe, go ahead. Intel did mess up by betting all its horses on it.
> Though they have made a spectacular comeback, Itanium has
> become a niche platform. From benchmarks I've seen, their
> latest x86/x64 processors even rival Itanium in performance.
> 

Oh? I thought the Itanium was slow as molasses? Or maybe I missed 
something about the Itanium II?