[l1k]

A lot of RISC CPU arches which were popular in the 1990's declined because their promulgators stopped investments and bet on switching to IA64 instead. Around the year 2000, VLIW was seen as the future and all the CISC and RISC architectures were considered obsolete.

That strategic failure by competitors allowed x86 to grow market share at the high end, which benefited Intel more than the money lost on Itanium.

[ghaff]

It's more complicated than that.

Sun didn't slow down on UltraSPARC or make an Itanium side bet. IBM did (and continues to) place their big hardware bet on Power--Itanium was mostly a cover your bases thing. I don't know what HP would have done--presumably either gone their own way with VLIW or kept PA-RISC going.

Pretty much all the other RISC/Unix players had to go to a standard processor; some were already on x86. Intel mostly recovered from Itanium specifically but it didn't do them any favors.

[sliken]

Actually, they did. Intel promised aggressive delivery schedule, performance ramp, and performance. The industry took it hook, line, and sinker. While AMD decided not to limit 64 bit to the high end and brought out x86-64.

Sun did a port IA64 port of solaris, which is definitely an itanium side bet.

HP was involved in the IA64 effort and definitely was planning on the replacement of pa-risc from day 1.

[panick21_]

Sun didn't slow down on UltraSPARC but they were just not very good at designing processors.

[foobiekr]

This isn't really true. IBM/Motorola need to own the failure of POWER and PowerPC and MIPS straight up died on the performance side. Sun continued with Ultrasparc.

It wasn't that IA64 killed them, it's that they were getting shaky and IA64 appealed _because_ of that. Plus the lack of a 64bit x86.

[userbinator]

Plus the lack of a 64bit x86.

If you look at the definitions of various structures and opcodes in x86 you'll notice gaps that would've been ideal for a 64-bit expansion, so I think they had a plan besides IA64, but AMD beat them to it (and IMHO with a far more inelegant extension.)

[panick21_]

Its simply economics Intel had the volume. Sun and SGI simply didn't have the economics to invest the same amount, and they were also not chip company, the both didn't invest enough in chip design or invested it wrongly.

Sun spend an unbelievable amount of money on dumb ass processor projects.

Towards the end of the 90s all of them realized their business model would not do well against Intel, so pretty much all of them were looking for an exit and IA64 hype basically killed most of them. Sun stuck it out with Sparc with mixed results. IBM POWER continues but in a thin slice of the market.

Ironically there was a section of Digital and Intel who thought that Alpha should be the bases of 64 bit x86. That would have made Intel pretty dominate. Alpha (maybe a TSO version) with 32 bit x86 comparability mode.

[Dalewyn]

>That strategic failure by competitors allowed x86 to grow market share at the high end, which benefited Intel more than the money lost on Itanium.

In that sense, Itanium was a resounding success for Intel (and AMD).

[panick21_]

Itanium was a success right until they actually made a chip.

What they should have done is hype Itanium and then they day it came out they should have said yeah this was a joke, what we did is buy Alpha from Compaq and its literally just Alpha with x86 comparability mode.

Then they would have dominated.