>there are plebeian shitters on /g/ RIGHT now that aren't using an Itanium™
It's literally EPIC℠
>>52150304
But I do op. 9560 reporting
HP is paying Intel hundreds of millions of dollars to keep Itanium alive because they have 20+ year support contracts with the DoD and other agencies who fell for this crap architecture.
Itanic also managed to kill all the excellent RISC machines of the 80s and 90s while delivering absolutely nothing.
>>52150492
>that TDP
noice
>>52150638
Even HP's given up on it now, their next-gen integrities and NonStops are going full x86
They only really killed the Alpha and PA-RISC though, the rest of them died because of a combination of x86 surpassing baseline performance levels for a lot of tasks only workstations were good at and the dotcom bubble blowing a lot of hardware companies the fuck out that hedged their bets on e-business
>>52150492
http://ark.intel.com/products/71699/Intel-Itanium-Processor-9560-32M-Cache-2_53-GHz
$5k for just 2.5 GHz at 170W. Even a low-end Xeon E3 performs better than that.
>>52150805
All you need to do is go to your nearest Hewlett®-Packard™ authorized reseller and find out g- senpai
>>52150859
Clock speed is a really inaccurate way of comparing different microarchitectures, let alone something as drastically different as X86-64 and IA-64.
You're probably still right though, current Itanic revisions are now over three years old and the architecture has likely lost the massive floating point edge it had over x86 chips on release.
>>52150304
So this is the symptom of a patience suffering from a terminal case of intel shills?
>>52151943
No goy, haven't you heard? It's VLIW awareness week!
W-what are you, some kind of anti-semite, or worse, AMD64 "advocate"?
>>52152011
Nope. Someone that worked enough with HP-UX and IA64 Windows to know you are full of shit.
>>52150304
>>52152238
Sounds like an anti-semitic AMD64 shill to me.
Our representatives will be with you shortly.
