> > As a non-Alpha user (but an aspirant one), I'm curious to know how the > > 'community' sees IA64? Is it perceived as a threat? Would alpha users > > be persuaded to switch over easily? > > I, for one, am excited about having a 64-bit Intel chip out there for a > lot of reasons. For one, it'll make porting much easier since most > software authors will know the issues involved (rather than assume that > the whole world is 32-bit, like they do now) and write things > properly. Also, I think the competition may be good for Alpha since it'll > bring more attention to the 64-bit market. Right now, clock speed seems > to be what people look at rather than performance and I really hope that > changes (in my experience, a similarly-clocked Alpha can easily outperform > Intel's current offerings in almost every area).
As you say it's good to have more 64-bit awareness, but I'm wondering how long it will take the IA64 to reach "the masses", ie how long will it remain a high-end architecture. It will probably remain expensive for at least a year or two (but we'll see what AMD does too), and since it emulates IA32 it won't be competitive with existing IA32 solutions. Personally I'ld like to get hold of a 64-bit machine for operating systems research, but it's really a significant expense (for a poor student) and I'ld probably have to first earn the money, making the decision even more painful. (You can buy a lot of other stuff, eg lots of IA32 boxes, or an overseas holiday for the price of a 21264!). > On the downside, however, Intel's clout and manufacturing volume could > spell trouble for Alpha. Since we don't really know what the pricepoint > on the Intels will be, it's hard to tell what effect their introduction > will have on the Alpha market, but one thing's for sure: Intel's bound to > try to undercut the Alpha prices. It's going to be interesting. I'm also > curious to see how well FP performance is compared to Alphas (haven't seen > a side-by-side comparison yet). Alpha still may reign in the scientific > market in the long run if the FP performance is still higher than Intel's. Who fabs the Alpha processors? > > How do the free software compiler-writer people feel about the > > architecture? > > I agree with the other statements made about gcc's support for IA64 (at > least for now). It's certainly going to be a bit before gcc optimises > well for IA64, especially since it's just recently gotten better (albeit > still not great) for 64-bit processors in general. The unique pipelining > of the IA64 architecture makes this even uglier, though, so I'm very glad > to not have gotten involved in that port yet :-P >From what I've read I understand that there is a lot of work to be done by the compiler to benefit from IA64's features. It also seems very different from what we're used to. > SGI's compilers are much better, as previously stated, mostly because of > SGI's experience with 64-bit issues (WRT to MIPS) and they've actually got > some really good people in their compiler area. I just doubt that their > compiler will be more prominent (or take over) gcc's slot as the premiere > Linux compiler any time soon. I'm hoping they donate more to gcc to make > it better since SGI doesn't turn much business from selling/supporting > compilers, even on their own machines. > > I could go on and on about this, but I won't in the interest of brevity > :-) :-). Interesting how the GNU project was centered around GCC, and of course GCC is very portable, but yet it's very difficult when you start using radically different architectures. > At any rate, IA64 is coming and, yes, I wouldn't mind having one, but what > it does to Alpha remains to be seen, I guess. Well Alpha has had a decent head start, we'll see what happens. John Leuner
