Reply to post: Re: We have only ourselves to blame

Here come the lawyers! Intel slapped with three Meltdown bug lawsuits

Flocke Kroes Silver badge

Re: We have only ourselves to blame

Itanium's first success was before it was even a product, R&D on existing 64-bit designs stopped on the assumption that they would not be able to compete with Intel. Anyone know if any of the old 64-bit designs could later have become susceptible to meltdown? Itanium took ages to get to market either because it was a difficult design or because with the competition gone there was no reason to rush.

Itanium was not built for speed. The primary design goal was to use so many transistors that no-one would be able to manufacture a compatible product. This goal was achieved by such a large margin that the first version used too much power to become a product. Even when Itanium became a real product its performance per watt stank. Software was either non-existent or priced higher than the SLS so sales were crap leading to poor performance/$. Itanium was never a competitor to X86 and was a zombie incapable of eating brains before AMD64 was available.

68020 had separate tables for user and supervisor address translations. It was meltdown proof, and the same went for 88110. I do not know if Itanium had a sane MMU design, but it was never an option for anyone without an unlimited budget and it did kill a bunch of architectures some of which were meltdown proof.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019