Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture
 =?UTF-8?B?ZGVzaWduZXI/?=
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 22:49:21 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <a95a0222aea5d80cb1a9c9954e42c72d@www.novabbs.org>
References: <memo.20240913205156.19028s@jgd.cix.co.uk> <2024Sep14.092902@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <20240915000639.00003b00@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2081261"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="65wTazMNTleAJDh/pRqmKE7ADni/0wesT78+pyiDW8A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: ac58ceb75ea22753186dae54d967fed894c3dce8
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$2kjHOL4FpbFXao.1qbcRguHYdGIKB1ZqannZPkHVabRRWT9nmOKCS
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 1756
Lines: 21

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:06:39 +0000, Michael S wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 07:29:02 GMT
> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:
>
>>
>> It seems to me that IA-64 was a bigger failure: More money invested,
>> and more money lost (probably even relative to the size of the company
>> at the time).
>>
>> - anton
>
> But more money made, too.
> I'd suppose, in its later days, when all ambitions evaporated, Itanium
> became a decent cache cow for Intel. Not spectacular, of course, just
> decent.

I do not believe that the sales revenue even met the engineering and
manufacturing costs.

> i860 didn't quuie reach the state of cache cow. And i432 didn't reach
> anything.