This statement is the perfect example of your current posting
pattern of idiotic claims and/or trolling.
Take your pill and chill out.
The target market for IPF was RISC processors. In 1994 that
included mid to high end servers and technical workstations.
In 2002 when McKinley shipped that included mid to high end
servers.
What is the point of another "x86-me-too" uarch for Intel ? IA64 was supposed to get round the limitations of x86 and offer a substantial ROI.
Yet , it turned into YARLU ( yet another risc-like uarch ).
x86 could equally well target mid-high end servers , once you put RAS features into it.
Guess what , Intel/AMD are doing exactly that.
I ask again : what is the point of IPF ? Artificially segmenting the server market as Intel hopelessly tries to put it ?
Please show me how high clock rates or lower power benefit
mid to high end server platforms? Keep in mind one of the
earliest lessons a compute newb learns is frequency is not
the same thing as performance, especially in comparisons
across architectures. Were you hoping for IPF laptops?
Well , IPF lacks both.It performs "good enough" , 30% better than the Alpha servers it replaces and which were developed 6 years ago.That's a breakthrough , isn't it?
Let me make this clear - grow the **** up! Pull your head
out and look around at what is actually happening. Whine
all you want about low IPF clock rate, how great Power6
is, and how much cheaper and lower power x86 chips are
but in Q3, the last quarter reported, IPF server revenues
were up roughly 50%, i.e. IPF sales grew a HUNDRED
TIMES FASTER than the overall server market (0.5%).
The problem is IPF is growing inside HP's backyard.Outside that , there's real misery and other IPF vendors see that 1st hand.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
