Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:07:12 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Erich Dollansky <erich@apsara.com.sg> Cc: Mark Stapper <stark@mapper.nl>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel designations terminology confusion -- amd64 used for into quad core Message-ID: <20090806110712.GA5475@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <200908061718.10505.erich@apsara.com.sg> References: <200908051414.49468.david@vizion2000.net> <200908061631.04639.erich@apsara.com.sg> <4A7A9709.9070803@mapper.nl> <200908061718.10505.erich@apsara.com.sg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:18:09PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > 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? Yes, but not very large numbers - especially not compared to x86 machines. According to some estimates quoted in the Wikipedia article on Itanium, Intel manufactures around 200,000 Itanium CPUs per year, which translates to a far smaller number of machines since most of them are multi-CPU systems. By far the largest seller of Itanium-based systems is HP (which also partnered with Intel in creating the IA64 architecture in the first place.) > > 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. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090806110712.GA5475>