On Du, 14 mar 21, 07:19:25, The Wanderer wrote: > > When 64-bit came along, rather than extending the x86 line, Intel > started from scratch and designed an entire new CPU architecture. That > got called ia64, and it never caught on; it eventually failed in the > marketplace, except possibly in very limited market segments. > when Intel created a 64-bit architecture (called ia64), it turned out to > be a developmental dead end and failed in the marketplace.
As far as I recall from articles at the time, there were good reasons to use the opportunity of the transition from 32 to 64 bits to create a completely new architecture. Apparently the x86 architecture has some significant deficiencies, which probably explains why it's now being challenged more and more by ARM (comparable performance at a fraction of the power consumption). Regardless of the merits (or not) of the ia64 architecture, Intel simply tried to force the industry to follow its lead, at significant additional costs (see RAMBUS), but the industry chose amd64 instead. In hindsight, it probably would have been wiser for Intel to make the transition to ia64 as smooth as possible and charge higher costs later, with AMD out of the game. Fortunately for us (consumers) they were overconfident. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
