Dead for a couple years now actually.

Hopefully

>>55565321
Why?

>>55565520
Bad x64 emulation and bad compiler. Intel should have cared at least about one of these two.

In the end normal Xeon cpus are faster and cheaper in 99% of the use cases.

>>55565673
But I want a VLIW processor ;_;

>>55567485
Itanic is one of the worst VLIWs ever made.

>>55567820
Any other vliw CPUs out there?

>>55568113
Transmeta had a couple.

The problem was they only emulated x86 and never let anyone touch the VLIW magic. Would have been nifty to let hackers hand-code certain things in VLIW e.g. a JPEG en/decoder by flipping a register.

>>55565520
It was 64 bit only. You could not run 32 bit programs on it.
>>55567820
New Xeons have AVX512 - a set of 512 bit registers, if it helps.

>>55564708
Intel doesn't give a shit about it anymore since the Xeon is much more lucrative, they'll probably update it one last time and then send it on its way, HP has already swapped out their big iron for higher end Xeons since they finally got their dick up on RAS features

>>55565673
I don't think the compiler was necessarily bad, just disappointing. Itaniums were still excellent chips for scientific computing that could take advantage of its blinding floating point performance and "mission critical" shit like big database systems that took advantage of the RAS features of the chip and the hardware built around it.

>>55565673
>>55568607
The shit IA-32 emulation really only killed their viability in the consumer space. Though it was a lot of what Intel was banking on.

>>55568607
Why would you need 32bit support anymore though? Do people still make 32bit exclusive applications? Have they made any in the last 5 years?

>>55569124
>Why would you need 32bit support anymore though? Do people still make 32bit exclusive applications? Have they made any in the last 5 years?
But first Itanium came out like in 2003 or something. 32 bit apps were standard then. Intel wasted their time making this IA64 architecture while AMD made AMD64 which supported 32 bit apps. Then Intel had to licence AMD64. They called their version of AMD64 the "EM64T".

>>55569260
Oh right, I had no idea it was that old.

Yeah that makes sense now, what were they thinking?

>>55565673
>Bad x64 emulation
bad performance for programs made for "normal" cpus
> bad compiler
its not easy to create new programs (or compile old ones) and get good performance

>>55564708
It was kill from the beginning, but HP pushed it for a few years

>>55569611
>Yeah that makes sense now, what were they thinking?
Fuck knows what they were thinking. But that's where they've started to decline. They only stopped declining with the release of Core 2. I think they regretted making Itanium after the AMD64 release but they could not drop it because that would piss off the enterprise customers who already have built software for it. They had to drag it for 10 years. A 10 year support plan or something.