AMD Killed the Itanium (2005)
Yeah this isn&#x27;t quite what happened.  Firstly, Intel didn&#x27;t start Itanium, HP did, as a successor to their HP Precision line.  I forget how they got together, but it was a collaboration between Intel and HP, but HP started it and had largely the architecture defined before Intel got involved.<p>Secondly, it&#x27;s true that AMD hammered the nails in the coffin, but AMD wouldn&#x27;t have mattered if Itanic had been faster, cheap, and on time.  Itanic was a disaster partly because of overly complicated design by committee and partly because of the fundamentally flawed assumption (that you don&#x27;t need dynamic scheduling, AKA OoO processing).<p>I have an Itanium in the garage, a monument to hubris.<p>UPDATE: I forgot to mention that from the outside it might seem that Intel had a singular vision, but the reality is that there were massive political battles internally and the company was largely split into IA-64 and x86 camps.<p>UPDATE2: Itanium was massively successful in one thing: it killed off Alpha and a few other cpus, just based on what Intel claimed.