Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 08:08:30 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <erich@apsara.com.sg> To: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> Cc: Mark Stapper <stark@mapper.nl>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel designations terminology confusion -- amd64 used for into quad core Message-ID: <200908070808.32646.erich@apsara.com.sg> In-Reply-To: <20090806110712.GA5475@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <200908051414.49468.david@vizion2000.net> <200908061718.10505.erich@apsara.com.sg> <20090806110712.GA5475@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On 06 August 2009 pm 19:07:12 Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:18:09PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > On 06 August 2009 pm 16:40:41 Mark Stapper wrote: > > > Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > > IA 64? Wans't this once - or still is - the term used for > > > > the Itanium? > > > > > > The one that didn't stick... indeed. > > > > do they really sell machines with this CPU in numbers? > > Wikipedia article on Itanium, Intel manufactures around 200,000 even for a 'RISC' CPU, this number seems very low to me. > > I have not seen one in the wild. > > Not surprising since the Itanium is mainly used in the kind of > high-end server systems that us ordinary people rarely see and > certainly can't afford to buy. I see Sun and IBM machines in places where the Itanium should fit. Some moved away from HP to avoid the Itanium. I know, USD 1 000 000 or more is not what normal people pay for a small computer. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200908070808.32646.erich>