News Focus
News Focus
icon url

mas

01/28/08 6:39 PM

#57439 RE: savantu #57438

Went from native dual-core at 90nm to native quad-core at 65nm and increased the frequency apparently, AMD have still to manage this, so no small feat.

As x86 get more and more RAS features , the pie IPF has to content with shrinks rapidly.

IPF's pie is pretty static, HP Enterprise Servers and proprietary operating systems. It's biggest rivals at the moment are the legacy processors it is earmarked to replace and which it has to make look obsolete to trigger upgrades. By the time it has finished doing that then 32nm Poulson should be here and be more competitive against Power/Rock/x86 to maintain/increase share going forward.

Why weren't they able to fix Foxton and make Tukwilla rock ?

Foxton is probably permanently screwed, a bright idea that just didn't work.




icon url

wbmw

01/28/08 6:45 PM

#57440 RE: savantu #57438

Re: Well Montecito ran in the lab at 2.3GHz in FFM , TDP was probably 250w.
With Foxton Montecito was expected to reach 2.3-2.5GHz , Montvale 3GHz at 65nm.Obviosly , 2008 =! 2004 hopes and Montecito/Montvale ended up at 1.66GHz.Truly pathetic.


Do you honestly think that people buy Itaniums for the clock frequency, rather than performance? If not, then why are you making an issue out of missing frequency goals?
icon url

chipguy

01/28/08 7:27 PM

#57442 RE: savantu #57438

They had 3 teams : HP Fort Collins , Intel's own and exDec.

Wrong.

Why weren't they able to fix Foxton and make Tukwilla rock ?

Do you understand the design cycle pipeline for a high end
server MPU? Go ask an ex-ADTer why the 0.25 um EV67
never hit its original frequency target. They knew exactly why
before release and it was a pretty dumb mistake. Now ask
them why they didn't go back and fix it.

Personally I think a Foxton-less Montecito that delivers 2x+
the performance of Madison 9M at 20% lower power is a big
win compared to shifting the enture IPF roadmap back and
going with Madison for *another* 2 years.

BTW, why aren't you slagging off the IBM Power6 folks who
could only deliver 2000 systems in the first 4-5 months after
its release? Or why their MCM based systems slipped by at
least 2 quarters?