Talk:POWER5

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

199.90.15.3 contested the validity of the claim that POWER4 was successful. Here is my POV. POWER4 was successful since:

IBM was the #1 UNIX vendor during the period
it held and kept several performance records (TPC-C, fastest supercomuter in the US)
it spawed PowerPC 970 and POWER5
- The former saved Apple, the latter reinforced IBMs position as #1 UNIX vendor performance wise and by revenue
it replaced 2 different architectures (RS64 and POWER3) unifying two server families (pSeries and iSeries)
was the first commercially availabe dual core processor
survived as several high end RISC architectures lost to x86 (PA-RISC, MIPS, Alpha). SPARC nearly died too
was the most common supercomputer processor during the period, excluding x86 processors

POWER4 did all this while being used solely by IBM. Pretty succesful according to me. -- Henriok 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sizing Up the Super Heavyweights"

The author of this article has rescinded RealWorldTech's permission to show his article, however, he has given Hewlett-Packard permission to post his article on their site, so perhaps we should change the link?

This is the alternate url

http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/files/unprotected/Itanium/sizingsuperheavys.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.143.64 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]