Doug, there are two extremes that trolls like to employ on this forum. There is the, "AMD rules, Intel sucks, Opteron is the future of the world and Itanium is already doomed," crowd, and then the, "Intel can do no wrong, AMD is perpetually behind and has no future, Opteron is a dud and IPF is the way to go," crowd.
I'm trying for something realistic, and I think it lies somewhere in the middle. Opteron is a great chip, and it's a generation ahead of Xeon. IPF is also great; it happens to outperform on enterprise apps, but it isn't yet fit for mainstream. Opteron is getting design wins, and IPF already has many. Both service different needs, and I don't think you can make the argument that one is superior to another based on either server or processor volumes.
The extreme critics will always find a way to discredit Itanium, but it has come a long way in just a year. So has Opteron, in spite of those who criticised it. Do you not think a scenario lasts in the middle, Doug? Can both Itanium and Opteron coexist? I think so, but just because I disagree with you, does not make me anything like the caricature you painted:
Re: "Itanium rules. Itanium rules. Intel will
never launch an AMD64-compatible clon
e. HP will never ship Opteron. Prescott
will crush AMD with outstanding perf
ormance. Itanium rules. Only Itanium is
truly 64-bit. The launch of iAMD64 has no im
pact on Itanium. IA-64 is great. Opteron sucks."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
