Intel has a core in Dothan that has a lot more potential to be a great server chip, better than Itanium (see SpecInt)
Sigh. Haven't we beaten around this particular bush already?
1) Too bad PC myopic people think that SPECint accurately reflects the commercial or technical workloads that most people buy large scale servers to run. If that was the case Alpha would have been much more successful than SPARC instead of the other way around.
2) Who says that on equal process footing that P-M will be better on SPECint than IPF? At 1.5 GHz the 130 nm Banias gets 995 SPECint_base2k compared to 1408 for the 130 nm Madison 6M. IPF's advantage in SPECint IPC should increase in 90 nm with Montecito vs Dothan as well as the IPF chip likely having better frequency scaling at 90 nm. All that despite IPF chips not being optimized for SPECint like x86 desktop/mobile chips.
Summary: - any architectural based SPECint gap favors IPF going foward - SPECint doesn't even matter for current IPF target markets. If and when it does (Tukwila derivatives for desktop?) one could expect suitably optimized implementations.
provided that Intel makes some adjustments to it to target the server market.
Extend P-M to server class features and you seriously close the gap in cost and power vs IPF that makes the Dothan so intriguing as a fast cool little chip.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
