James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
Tracy R Reed wrote:
Dexter Filmore wrote:
Intel did that on Itanium. Performed like a dead nun in a closet
filled with concrete.
But they didn't just throw out the old cruft, they went with a whole
new CPU design philosophy. VLIW and other stuff IIRC.
Yes, and VLIW is what kills it. I still remember the DEC architecture
guys cheering when they found out that Intel chose VLIW. DEC had been
trying for 15 years to make VLIW perform and couldn't; they (rightfully)
believed that Intel couldn't do it either.
Of course, then you had the hostile giveaway from DEC to Intel that made
it all moot.
OK, I'll bite on that one. I can sorta imaging what it means, but can
you elaborate on 'hostile giveaway'?
This is usually observed when a parent forbids a child from leaving the
table until he has eaten his vegetables.
--
Ralph
--------------------
Meteorite crashes into New Zealand house If her fundamental assumptions don't allow for the existence of meteorites, that meterorite would still have mattered. I think you're wrong when you say that your fundamental assumptions being incorrect doesn't really matter. --todd
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
