Feeds

Intel delays and slows dual-core Itanium

Quality issues and price/performance woes

The essential guide to IT transformation

Intel has ripped open another huge hole on the troubled ship Itanic, saying that the dual-core Montecito chip won't arrive until mid-2006 and will come in much slower than expected.

Just two weeks ago, Intel told reporters that Montecito would begin shipping at the end of this year and ramp to volume in the first quarter of 2006. Not so. A quality issue of mysterious origins has pushed delivery back to the middle of next year and left the chip limping along at 1.6GHz instead of 2.0GHz - a result of the Foxton power management technology being nixed for the chip. In addition, the successor chip Montvale won't ship until 2007 now and Tukwila won't arrive until 2008.

These delays serve as huge blows to Itanium's two main customers - HP and SGI. Both companies had been depending on Intel to catch up finally with rivals IBM and Sun Microsystems. Customers will be most displeased to see Itanium fall close to five years behind IBM with dual-core technology.

Intel also delivered some shockers on the Xeon front, although it pitched these changes as positives instead of negatives.

It has cancelled the multicore Whitefield chip and replaced it with a product called Tigerton. Grrr. The Tigerton chip will now be part of the new Caneland platform for Xeon MP chips, as Intel has cancelled the Reidland platform associated with Whitefield.

Intel seems to have some kind of answer to AMD's direct connect architecture planned with Tigerton called the "high-speed interconnect." This will give each processor its own connection to the chipset instead running data through a shared front-side bus. Intel's dependency on the front side bus has been one of its major handicaps in trying to compete with AMD's better performing Opteron chips.

Intel said that this new technology will not replace the "next-generation interconnect" it has planned for future chips.

Here, however, is the bad news. This shift in architectures will cause another delay in Intel's plans to develop a shared socket design between the Itanium and Xeon chips. This design promised to make the pricey Itanic systems more affordable. Intel once planned to introduce the common design in 2007. It won't ship the design now for Itanium systems until 2008 and refuses to release a date for a Xeon version of the design.

This flood of announcements could well be remembered as the day Itanium died. ®

Boost IT visibility and business value

More from The Register

next story
Pay to play: The hidden cost of software defined everything
Enter credit card details if you want that system you bought to actually be useful
HP busts out new ProLiant Gen9 servers
Think those are cool? Wait till you get a load of our racks
Shoot-em-up: Sony Online Entertainment hit by 'large scale DDoS attack'
Games disrupted as firm struggles to control network
Community chest: Storage firms need to pay open-source debts
Samba implementation? Time to get some devs on the job
Silicon Valley jolted by magnitude 6.1 quake – its biggest in 25 years
Did the earth move for you at VMworld – oh, OK. It just did. A lot
Forrester says it's time to give up on physical storage arrays
The physical/virtual storage tipping point may just have arrived
prev story

Whitepapers

Top 10 endpoint backup mistakes
Avoid the ten endpoint backup mistakes to ensure that your critical corporate data is protected and end user productivity is improved.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Backing up distributed data
Eliminating the redundant use of bandwidth and storage capacity and application consolidation in the modern data center.
The essential guide to IT transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIOs automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.