Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon@widomaker.com> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 07:48:40AM -0800, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> 
> > More like: Itanium (I) was slow junk (Itanium II is supposed to address
> > many of the performance problems).  But IA64 requires a lot of help from
> > the compiler to achieve any performance at all, and GCC is simply not up
> > to the task yet.  Therefore, any code compiled by GCC for IA64 is going
> > to be quite slow.
> 
> Why are we talking about the Itanium 2 and the IA64 as if they were the
> same CPU?
> 
> I thought they were supposed to be radically different.

Let me try to clear up the terminology here:

IA64: Intel's newish 64-bit architecture, based on EPIC/VLIW
techniques. Radically different from x86, though it includes the
ability to run x86 code.

IPF: "Intel Processor Family". Intel's latest nomenclature for IA64,
mysteriously de-emphasizing the "64" part.

Itanium: First implementation of IA64/IPF, also known by the code name
Merced. Slow as a dog.

Itanium 2: Second implementation of IA64/IPF, also known by the code
name McKinley. An almost respectable CPU.

x86-64: AMD's 64-bit architecture, based on 64-bit extensions and some
cleaning up of the x86 ISA. Not very radical, but probalby very
practical. Also includes the ability to run 32-bit x86 code.

Athlon 64, ClawHammer, SledgeHammer: AMD's announced implementations
of x86-64.

        - Nathan