32 or 64??

[Odd]

Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> 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?

I think you are correct. Intel's latest Itanium was launched in 2007.
Must have been a good while since I saw those benchmarks.
Tukwila has been postponed time and time again.

Now this:
Unisys Xeon-based Server Vaults Over Itanium Systems
http://tinyurl.com/yzdh5ah

-- 
Odd