Talk:IA-64

message: The reference to "EFI" in instruction set is technically incorrect.  EFI is a specification that governs a replacement for system BIOS it applies to any architecture, not IPF in particular.  The code that supplements an IPF processor is call the PAL/SAL for Processor Abstraction Layer/System Abstraction Layer.  I will change this shortly if nobody objects.
--Metadynamics 23:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EFI isn't an instruction set 

message: Did this IA-64 article ever get merged into the Itanium article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.80.108.112 (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the discussion in the talk page for Itanium, this should not be merged as it applies to the IA64 architecture, not the Itanium product as sold by Intel.  If anything the Itanium and Itanium2 pages should be merged, even though they are generationally distict they are logically continuous.--Metadynamics 23:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with Itanium article 

message: Is this also the same instruction set that Apple Computer will port into? If yes, it should be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.191.1 (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IA-64 and Apple 

message: Perhaps the developments around the IA-32 Execution Layer could be added to the part regarding IA-32 Support? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.121.33 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IA-32 Execution Layer 

message: I thought Intel had given up on IA-64 and switched to making x86-64 go faster. If that's true, it should be reflected in this article. (sorry, I don't have a reference at hand) --Alvestrand 22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No they have not, as of Feb 2007. Please see Itanium 2.  The fact that apparently everybody in the industry thinks that they should just give it up does not mean that they have given it up.  See Intel iAPX 432 for the last time this happened. - Arch dude 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the relationship between IA-64 and x86-64 is just like yesterday's Windows NT and Windows 9x(95, 98 and Me). For years, Windows NT 4.0 stay in the silent, but Windows 9x was popular and many following editions released. But one day Windows XP arrived, everything changed. I think Itanium Architecture is just like yesterday's Windows NT, and eventually would take over the all the x86 market to arrive on everyone's desktop. Janagewen (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Far from "just like". Microsoft was always planning to bring the 9x users into the NT family; you can see that in roadmaps they published as early as 94. Whereas, there has never been a roadmap or anything else from Intel that suggests they are even thinking about introducing Itanium to the typical desktop (not, at least, since the wild success of AMD64, followed by Intel's grudgingly following suit). Heck, with the performance increases seen by x64, Itanium is not even much of a contender in the workstation market. It is inherently a much higher cost architecture to make chips for than x86/x64, so it's never going to be able to compete at the low end. Jeh (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

text:  Janagewen... you don't have to strike something out just because someone has disagreed with you! Jeh (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

text:  Nowadays more and more software and hardware manufacturers stall support for it, but through its outstanding design, there is no equivalent replacement to it. So at this point, the future Itanium might need a hybrid change, leaving the x86 support on the level of decoder on microarchitecture, rather than on the firmware or OS level. Hybriding the x86 and Itanium codes together when running on IA-32 OS might be the potential future view of it. In other words, not let OS aware of the Itanium codes, but Itanium itself could manipulate themselves, when working under IA-32 or x64 OSes. When working under pure Itanium mode OS, x86 support could be removed at all. From Pentium through Core i7, Intel is definitively the proficient microarchitecture designer. So I think IA-64 is not dead at all, but like roses grow themselves up in the long cold winters. I do apologize for my fantasy guess. Janagewen (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should do my apologize to this guy, Jeh, that there might be something wrong with internet connection when I post my last reply. So that might be the reason cause something not right here. And this time I fix it. I've no purpose to make any damage or interference of what other's writes. But Jeh, how you make warning to me, that is the business of your own. But for more than that, I think one should respect to him/herself on Wikipedia.org first of all... Janagewen (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't IA-64 dead? 

message: I think this article needs more sources. Whole sections do not cite a single source. New guy 01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more sources 

message: I have attempted to write a consolidated article, capturing all the important stuff from Itanium, Itanium 2, and IA-64, with the intent of replacing the three with one article named Itanium.
The proposed article is in my workspace. Please review and comment. (Comments on the proposed article's talk page, please.)
In addition to simplification and consolidation, I have attempted to add citations wherever I could, and I have removed some material that I could not find citations for. The article is basically a complete rewrite, but almost everything in it is from the original articles, with two major exceptions:
* The material on the architecture is considerably more detailed and focused on architecture.
* I added a timeline, moved many statements to the timeline, and added material to it.
The form of the citations still needs work, and we need still more citations. We are still missing a lot of history from the timeline,(mostly 1994-1997) and we are missing a paragraph in the "History" section abou tthe period from 2002 to present.However, this is material that is not present in the current articles either.
Thanks.-Arch dude 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: consolidated article 

message: The introduction ends with, "As of 2008, Itanium was the fourth-most deployed microprocessor architecture for enterprise-class systems, behind x86-64, Power Architecture, and SPARC."
The History section's last subsection is, "Itanium 9500 (Poulson): 2012".
I resorted to using my browser's page search functionality to search for successive years: "2013", "2014", "2015".
It would be nice if the article made the current status of IA-64 more clear and/or more obvious.
Thanks for reading!  173.13.156.125 (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  It would be nice for the current status of IA-64 to be made clear 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on IA-64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720155941/http://www.eetimes.eu/18302255 to http://www.eetimes.eu/18302255
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071107044019/http://www.intel.com:80/products/processor/itanium/index.htm to http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As was the case on Itanium, the first of those references, and I fixed the reference to point to its new location.  The second one's Wayback Machine location works. Guy Harris (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Processor details are already covered in Itanium, and that coverage is more up-to-date.  Perhaps we should just quickly summarize the various IA-64/Itanium implementations here, leaving the details to Itanium. Guy Harris (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Itanium and IA-64 are the architecture name, why not merge them together?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.53.118.176 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need to duplicate [[Itanium]] in the History section? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on IA-64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1998_March_10/ai_20369933
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208073509/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9087319 to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9087319
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324101540/http://newsroom.intel.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/38-5835/Hot%20Chips%20%20Poulson%20disclosure%20Factsheet.pdf to http://newsroom.intel.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/38-5835/Hot%20Chips%20%20Poulson%20disclosure%20Factsheet.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211165228/http://communities.intel.com/community/openportit/server/blog/2011/08/19/itanium-poulson-update--greater-parallelism-new-instruction-replay-more-catch-the-details-from-hotchips to http://communities.intel.com/community/openportit/server/blog/2011/08/19/itanium-poulson-update--greater-parallelism-new-instruction-replay-more-catch-the-details-from-hotchips
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070420115913/http://gcc.gelato.org/ to http://gcc.gelato.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214005915/http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/processors/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207801059 to http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/processors/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207801059
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718121622/http://www.writefullyyours.com/pdf/Sun%20Reality%20Check-Itanium.pdf to http://www.writefullyyours.com/pdf/Sun%20Reality%20Check-Itanium.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070530053130/http://www.gelato.org/ to http://www.gelato.org/
*Added  tag to http://i.top500.org/stats/details/procgen/1299
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110213532/http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20121108120233_Intel_Launches_Eight_Core_Itanium_9500_Poulson_Mission_Critical_Server_Processor.html to http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20121108120233_Intel_Launches_Eight_Core_Itanium_9500_Poulson_Mission_Critical_Server_Processor.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303215640/http://h20341.www2.hp.com/integrity/w1/en/systems/integrity-systems-overview.html?jumpid=ex_R11294_us%2Fen%2Flarge%2Ftsg%2Fgo_integrity to http://h20341.www2.hp.com/integrity/w1/en/systems/integrity-systems-overview.html?jumpid=ex_R11294_us%2Fen%2Flarge%2Ftsg%2Fgo_integrity
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on IA-64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120160309/http://www.hpworks.org.uk/newsletter/ping-year-ago.rtf to http://www.hpworks.org.uk/newsletter/ping-year-ago.rtf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303215640/http://h20341.www2.hp.com/integrity/w1/en/systems/integrity-systems-overview.html?jumpid=ex_R11294_us%2Fen%2Flarge%2Ftsg%2Fgo_integrity to http://h20341.www2.hp.com/integrity/w1/en/systems/integrity-systems-overview.html?jumpid=ex_R11294_us%2Fen%2Flarge%2Ftsg%2Fgo_integrity
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To continue the above, but in a different direction. IA-64 is an architecture which can be implemented in processors. Those processors may implement it in different ways, as long as the result follows what the architecture says. Most often, architectures try to leave out implementation details, only describing the results of operations. One of those details is almost always speed. That allows for fast (expensive) and slow (not so expensive) implementations.  One of the goals of IBM S/360, usually considered the origination of the idea of architecture, was a wide range of speed (and price) implementations, all compatible at the user level. Following that, IA-64 as an architecture should not include things like superscalar. A perfectly fine implementation could execute each bundle in 60 clock cycles. However, the reason for bundling is to make it easier to overlap instruction execution, which has been hard for many other architectures. Gah4 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  architecture or processor? 

message: From the article. "64 one-bit predicate registers. These also have 32 static registers and 96 windowed or rotating registers. pr0 always reads 1 (true)." That doesn't add up. 2A02:168:2000:5B:B286:589F:2352:96B8 (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predicate registers 

message: In the section marketing, the article claims, that "Industry analysts predicted that IA-64 would dominate in servers, workstations, and high-end desktops, and eventually supplant both RISC and CISC architectures for all general-purpose applications." while referencing sources on AnanTach and VentureBeat. First of all, not only is that a pretty bold statement to make and highly subjective, it seems even to be entirely made up as it just looks like utter Intel-propaganda.
Secondly, the AnandTech article came out in November 9, 2005. The article on VentureBeat came out in May 2009!
That was actually already several years after AMD's AMD64 came to market (2003) and when the battle between AMD's AMD64 and Intel's IA-64 over any future 64-bit extension (or in case of Intel, outright replacement) was already settled years ago in favour of AMD's AMD64 (which Intel was forced to adapt to stay relevant). So how on earth do article being written an published years after the first Itanium-iteration came to market (2001), are possibly able to retroactively 'predict' Intel's Itanium being the dominating future platform?
Worst of all, neither the article on AnandTech nor VentureBeat even mentioning said bits Itanium becoming the mainstream dominant platform. I'd thus suggest to strike out the parts, since they're largely nonsense at best. --Smartcom5 (Talk ?) 01:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged claims of 'industry analysts predicting, that IA-64 would dominate in servers' and elsewhere, are completely unfounded