Q1 - Itanium is for servers. Itanium does not support x86 instruction sets unlike AMD's Athlon 64-bit which will do.

There are server-side mobos for Itaniums. They are more expensive than desktop mobos. Chipset required is different too, the E8870 chipset.
64 bit processing requires an OS that can take advantage of it. No such desktop OS currently available unless you are Mac, altho MS is said to be launching a 64 bit port of XP to be compatible with AMD's Athlon 64s. Not yet even in beta.

64-bit running 32-bit apps at twice the speed is not true, at least not true if you don't have a 64 bit OS which handles x86 instructions. Applications designed to utilize 32-bit are not able to take advantage of 64-bit. Also, 64 bit probably will not permit running 16 bit legacy games.

Itanium 64-bit supports Windows Server 2003, UX and Linux. It will not support x86 instruction set OSes. Supermicro makes a dual Itanium2 proc mobo with the E8870 chipset ... don't know where Supermicro sits in the server side mobo world. Don't know price either but I am guessing probably around $400.

That's all I can help you with. Cannot really address Q2 and after except to suggest that in Q3, Itanium disqualifies itself from your comparison set.


Edited by - Indy11 on 3/19/2004 8:58:07 PM

Edited by - Indy11 on 3/19/2004 8:59:59 PM

Relax everyone, I'm here! Well Indy's covered most of it (again ). Firstly, a 64-bit CPU will not be twice as fast. The 64-bit refers to the amount of memory that can be addressed, and a few other issues. There is also the problem that there are virtually no 64-bit OS's available as Indy already mentioned (apart from Tru64), and thus it is hard to benchmark them.

Q2 depends upon the features that you want, and the types of CPUs that you want. I can't look any MBs up, because I'm home on dial-up, but if someone hasn't suggested any more boards by Monday, I'll check while I'm at work. Most dual-CPU MBs are server boards, are heinously expensive, and don't offer as many features.

Q3 again depends upon what you want to use them for. I'll assume that you mean desktop. The Xeon is a good chip, because it is basically a pepped-up P4 with a lot more cache. The P4EE is a cross between between the P$ and the Xeon.

In regard to Q4, they are already experimenting with optical chips, and the speed is currently 1GHz I think. They should be quite useful when perfected though; far less heat.

With all of these questions, I'm surprised that you haven't asked about quantum computing.

The 64 bit version of XP isn't far off now, they're offering trial CD's or downloads at the moment. See here.
Are looking at building something here Ariana or are these just general questions?
Anyway the machine your looking at is more server than it is gaming beast. Dual processors will significantly speed up your multi tasking capabilities but won't crank out much more gaming grunt. If you are looking at building a server with multiple users, then dual Xeon's would be kick ass. However if you just want a gaming machine, then a P4 would be your best bet. As already mentioned by my esteemed collegues, the AMD 64 is the only 64 bit jobbie built for desktops, all the Intel 64 bit chips are specifically built for servers and not worth your time.

EDIT: Speaking of servers, is the TLR server running like a dog for everyone else or is it just me?

Edited by - Mustang on 3/20/2004 3:49:20 AM

Ga, US slow and slugish too.

Michael "Finalday"
In Memory Of WLB

Arooooo. Arf arf! Here too.

Indy - *Rolls eyes*.

Actually, THG have just put up an article that states that the new AMD64 FX-53 is actually faster than the P4EE in 3D games. I must mention that they did overclock the chip from 2.4 to 2.6GHz. Check out the benchmarks in the article. Very interesting.