Sun has to switch to Itanium?

Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Not offering any opinions myself, just relaying an article:

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6757

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
38 answers Last reply
More about switch itanium
  1. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:35:33 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
    <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

    >Not offering any opinions myself, just relaying an article:
    >
    >http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6757
    >

    Sounds like a pretty reasonable move (if you're, uh, not living in an
    AMD/Opteron/x86 echo chamber). SGI tried to sell its boxes as servers
    and couldn't. SGI has the box, Sun has the customers. Intel might
    even find some sweeteners to help the deal if Sun moves before it's a
    charity case.

    RM
  2. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <3es480l5dah19a1bdm61tsvge9mmgg3nuk@4ax.com>,
    Robert Myers <rmyers@rustuck.com> wrote:
    >On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:35:33 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
    ><news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Not offering any opinions myself, just relaying an article:
    >>
    >>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6757
    >
    >Sounds like a pretty reasonable move (if you're, uh, not living in an
    >AMD/Opteron/x86 echo chamber). SGI tried to sell its boxes as servers
    >and couldn't. SGI has the box, Sun has the customers. Intel might
    >even find some sweeteners to help the deal if Sun moves before it's a
    >charity case.

    That is very much oversimplifying the case - anyway, the technical
    advantages of the Altix have very little to do with the Itanium
    and a lot to do with memory management. If Sun bought SGI, it would
    make more sense for any new range of Altix to use Opteron in it.

    But I doubt the technical issues are the ones that dominate in this
    case.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Robert Myers" <rmyers@rustuck.com> wrote in message
    news:3es480l5dah19a1bdm61tsvge9mmgg3nuk@4ax.com...
    > Sounds like a pretty reasonable move (if you're, uh, not living in an
    > AMD/Opteron/x86 echo chamber). SGI tried to sell its boxes as servers
    > and couldn't. SGI has the box, Sun has the customers. Intel might
    > even find some sweeteners to help the deal if Sun moves before it's a
    > charity case.

    But will Intel be able to sweeten a deal enough without requiring Sun to
    stop selling Opterons? If Sun had to stop selling Opterons then it would
    really be the end of the line for them.

    Anyways, this guy's hypothesis is out of left-field. Why would Sun buy SGI?
    Sun spent a good deal of time back in the 90's destroying SGI to the point
    of where it is now.

    Yousuf Khan
  4. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
    news:c5ts8n$4rj$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
    > That is very much oversimplifying the case - anyway, the technical
    > advantages of the Altix have very little to do with the Itanium
    > and a lot to do with memory management. If Sun bought SGI, it would
    > make more sense for any new range of Altix to use Opteron in it.

    If that's the case, then why wouldn't SGI just start selling Opteron Altixes
    themselves? They don't need a buyout from Sun to do something like that.

    Yousuf Khan
  5. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:38:40 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
    <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

    >"Robert Myers" <rmyers@rustuck.com> wrote in message
    >news:3es480l5dah19a1bdm61tsvge9mmgg3nuk@4ax.com...
    >> Sounds like a pretty reasonable move (if you're, uh, not living in an
    >> AMD/Opteron/x86 echo chamber). SGI tried to sell its boxes as servers
    >> and couldn't. SGI has the box, Sun has the customers. Intel might
    >> even find some sweeteners to help the deal if Sun moves before it's a
    >> charity case.
    >
    >But will Intel be able to sweeten a deal enough without requiring Sun to
    >stop selling Opterons? If Sun had to stop selling Opterons then it would
    >really be the end of the line for them.
    >

    Respond to you? Respond to Nick? Respond to an entire mob of
    club-swinging, stone-throwing AMD salesmen (one of whom would surely
    like to take another swat at labelling me a kook)?

    You've all just been out in the sun too long. Money, money, money,
    money, money. Intel's got it, AMD doesn't. HP, IBM, SGI, and Dell
    will all be selling high-end Itanium boxes and Sun and Pathmark (or is
    that the name of a Drug Store? I get confused so easily) will be
    selling Optera.

    Were I Intel, I'd say, "Sure, you go right ahead and sell them
    Opterons. How much money you got in your ad budget, anyway? You want
    us to pay for Itanium ads so you can buy Opteron ads? Nah, don't
    think so. We'll pay for the Itanium ads. You keep right on selling
    them Opterons for, um, continuity. Just don't spend any or _our_
    advertising budget on them, okay?"

    >Anyways, this guy's hypothesis is out of left-field.
    >

    Yeah, it is out of left field. Still makes sense. Remember, VMS, an
    operating system for real men, will be running on Itanium. Wouldn't
    Sun like to go back to the days when people thought of Solaris almost
    the same way?

    >Why would Sun buy SGI?
    >Sun spent a good deal of time back in the 90's destroying SGI to the point
    >of where it is now.

    Why would Sun settle with Microsoft?

    RM
  6. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Robert Myers" <rmyers@rustuck.com> wrote in message
    news:je258014dfifr3n9dil859e1tp4q9itno0@4ax.com...
    > >But will Intel be able to sweeten a deal enough without requiring Sun to
    > >stop selling Opterons? If Sun had to stop selling Opterons then it would
    > >really be the end of the line for them.
    > >
    >
    > Respond to you? Respond to Nick? Respond to an entire mob of
    > club-swinging, stone-throwing AMD salesmen (one of whom would surely
    > like to take another swat at labelling me a kook)?

    Well there is good reason to keep selling Optera. Namely price &
    performance. You get to sell a lot of software with Optera because you'll be
    selling a lot of units of it.

    > You've all just been out in the sun too long. Money, money, money,
    > money, money. Intel's got it, AMD doesn't. HP, IBM, SGI, and Dell
    > will all be selling high-end Itanium boxes and Sun and Pathmark (or is
    > that the name of a Drug Store? I get confused so easily) will be
    > selling Optera.

    So far all of those Itanium sellers haven't made much of an impression with
    their Itanium sales. Even with all of Intel's money. I guess Intel simply
    doesn't have enough money to make the Itania completely free.

    > Were I Intel, I'd say, "Sure, you go right ahead and sell them
    > Opterons. How much money you got in your ad budget, anyway? You want
    > us to pay for Itanium ads so you can buy Opteron ads? Nah, don't
    > think so. We'll pay for the Itanium ads. You keep right on selling
    > them Opterons for, um, continuity. Just don't spend any or _our_
    > advertising budget on them, okay?"

    They could try that, but as we see with IBM and HP, they keep right on
    selling Opteron boxes, but they advertise a lot of Xeon boxes.

    > >Why would Sun buy SGI?
    > >Sun spent a good deal of time back in the 90's destroying SGI to the
    point
    > >of where it is now.
    >
    > Why would Sun settle with Microsoft?

    Well, in general, when you start a lawsuit, the expectation is that you will
    settle it eventually, in or out of court, it doesn't matter, but the end
    result is always a settlement.

    Yousuf Khan
  7. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:35:33 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
    <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
    >Not offering any opinions myself, just relaying an article:
    >
    >http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6757

    I'm not really makes any sense at all, he's totally ignoring the
    customers that Sun sells to!

    Just how, exactly, would the Itanium fit into any of Sun's line-up and
    how is it even remotely better than what they've got planned? Sun
    sells to two main markets, their "Network Facing" servers, ie database
    servers, web servers and the like, and their "Data Facing"
    workstations. Which of these would the Itanium fit into?

    One thing to remember before we begin: Going forward over the next
    5-10 years, probably the most important aspect of processor design is
    going to be performance/watt. Previously power consumption was low
    enough that it could generally be ignored for servers, that is no
    longer the case.

    First off, for their servers they are looking for throughput. High
    single threaded performance is pretty pointless as compared to high
    multithreaded performance. Sun is very well positioned in this market
    because of their software, Solaris is probably the best operating
    system on the planet when it comes to scalability (with the possible
    exception of AIX). However the hardware side of things helps Sun out
    here as well. Good I/O is very important for performance in this
    market while raw number crunching isn't such a big deal.

    So, what solution does Sun have? A little chip called "Niagara". 8
    cores, each capable of executing 4 threads simultaneously. It's
    single threaded performance won't even be half that of the Itanium,
    but for multithreaded performance it will SMOKE anything Intel has in
    the pipeline before "Tanglewood" in 2007/08, and it will do so with
    about half the power consumption (or less) and a smaller die.

    As for the workstation market, here Sun is dead in the water, but
    Itanium won't save them. x86 is going to steamroll over all other
    workstation architectures. It's already BY FAR the dominant
    workstation platform, and the only reason why x86 hasn't totally taken
    over the market is that it wasn't 64-bit. That, of course, has
    changed with the Opteron (and soon with the Xeon as well). The
    Itanium had it's chance to make an impact on the workstation world
    over the past few years, and it failed miserably. Now that 64-bit x86
    is a reality, NOBODY is interested in much else. Even if an Itanium
    is a little faster, who is going to spend $25,000 for an Itanium
    workstation when they can get 95% of the performance from an Opteron
    or Xeon system costing only $5000? It's even worse for the large
    chunk of workstation tasks that focus on integer performance where the
    Opteron is easily faster than the Itanium.

    Sun does still have a market for SPARC workstations to support legacy
    applications, but the Itanium is obviously no help here either.


    Really I'm not sure that there is much of a market for Itanium except
    as a replacement for PA-RISC and Alpha, neither of which were hugely
    successful chips (in terms of sales, both had some pretty decent
    performance). Itanium is a pretty good chip for HPC work, but that's
    not really a market Sun competes in anymore. I suppose by buying SGI
    and selling their Altix systems, Sun could get back into this market.
    However given that SGI is bleeding even more red ink than Sun is, I'm
    not sure that would be a very good idea. Besides, IBM looks to be
    STRONGLY pointing the way forward in HPC with their Blue Gene/L
    systems. Those who are familiar with this technology will know that
    it bares a resemblance to the Niagara chip mentioned above in that
    Blue Gene/L consists of many simple cores on a single chip rather than
    one complicated core.

    Now, things aren't entirely too bleak for Itanium. The idea of
    putting many cores on a single chip is, at least in theory, VERY well
    suited to the VLIW design that the Itanium purports to follow. VLIW
    chips should have a very simple and low powered core with a small die
    that gets quite a bit of performance by offloading a lot of work to
    software. The problem here is that somewhere along the way the
    Itanium seems to have become just totally buggered, but it is neither
    simple or low powered and the die is huge (admittedly it's mostly
    cache). However if Intel can get these aspects in line and get back
    to the original theory of VLIW chips, putting a whole bunch of
    Itaniums cores on a single chip could have a LOT of potential. This
    is exactly what Intel's "Tanglewood" chip is all about, though the
    shipping date of that chip has been rather fuzzy.

    Still, like I've hinted at above, it'll have to make it to market and
    get the software support behind it before the window of opportunity is
    gone. Sun's kind of in the same boat with Niagara, though at least
    they have an existing market to sell to, so that gives them more time.
    Intel (and customers) have to build their market for Itanium products,
    which is MUCH more difficult.

    I've mentioned a few things about this before, but I'll mentioned them
    again:

    1. I think Sun made the right choice in killing off the UltraSparc V.
    It wasn't going to be enough to save their workstation market from x86
    and it wasn't going to give them the "throughput computing" that
    Niagara will. The only dumb thing Sun did here was that they waited
    too long, they SHOULD have killed the UltraSparc V back in 2001 or
    thereabouts.

    2. There are only three ISAs that I see having a really positive
    future going forwards: x86, PowerPC and ARM (only counting higher-end
    stuff here, Motorola 68xx and PIC chips will still outsell everything
    else on the planet by an order of magnitude or two), Itanium looks
    like it will replace PA-RISC as HP's primary server chip as well as
    replacing Alpha as the choice for raw number crunching HPC stuff, but
    neither of those markets look super promising. Large *nix servers are
    continuously being replaced by smaller/cheaper x86 systems running
    Windows or Linux. HPC is moving more towards clusters of COTS stuff,
    or alternatively to stuff like IBM's Blue Gene/L. SPARC has an
    existing market to continue support, but again that's getting eaten up
    by x86 in a fairly large way.


    Anyway, not only do I not really think that Sun "has" to switch to
    Itanium, I'm not even sure that it would achieve anything. Maybe when
    "Tanglewood" gets here, but that's still a bit of an unknown.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  8. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<u5u5801tlqbqqktcsa78gvrec42s8ugfhv@4ax.com>...
    > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:35:33 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
    > <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
    > >Not offering any opinions myself, just relaying an article:
    > >
    > >http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6757
    >
    > I'm not really makes any sense at all, he's totally ignoring the
    > customers that Sun sells to!

    It does not make sense, but for other reasons...

    > Just how, exactly, would the Itanium fit into any of Sun's line-up and
    > how is it even remotely better than what they've got planned? Sun
    > sells to two main markets, their "Network Facing" servers, ie database
    > servers, web servers and the like, and their "Data Facing"
    > workstations. Which of these would the Itanium fit into?

    Most of them.

    > First off, for their servers they are looking for throughput. High
    > single threaded performance is pretty pointless as compared to high
    > multithreaded performance. Sun is very well positioned in this market
    > because of their software, Solaris is probably the best operating
    > system on the planet when it comes to scalability (with the possible
    > exception of AIX). However the hardware side of things helps Sun out
    > here as well. Good I/O is very important for performance in this
    > market while raw number crunching isn't such a big deal.

    If you have a 16 core machine and 128 core machine and they both
    perform a task with similar performance which one do you choose? What
    is the obvious answer to that?

    Do you have any evidence that HP-UX scales worse than AIX?

    > So, what solution does Sun have? A little chip called "Niagara". 8
    > cores, each capable of executing 4 threads simultaneously. It's
    > single threaded performance won't even be half that of the Itanium,
    > but for multithreaded performance it will SMOKE anything Intel has in
    > the pipeline before "Tanglewood" in 2007/08, and it will do so with
    > about half the power consumption (or less) and a smaller die.

    SMOKE?
    How can you know this? As far as I know very little is made public
    about Niagara, but you make lots of claims here. I also think the
    latest was that Niagara would be released in 2006, the same year
    Tukwila is supposed to be released. Perhaps Niagara can be released
    before Tukwila, but I don't think there will be over a year between.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:35:33 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
    <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

    >Not offering any opinions myself, just relaying an article:
    >
    >http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6757

    Hmmm, I didn't see any mention of Fujitsu in that article. It was my
    impression that would be Sun's fallback for the Sparc market systems. IOW
    it's not the end of the world for Sun though times are likely to be hard
    for a bit. In the Opteron space, I expect them to (eventually) come up
    with something which sets them apart, at least as a total system, from all
    the others and protects their current customer base.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  10. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In comp.arch Yousuf Khan <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
    > If that's the case, then why wouldn't SGI just start selling Opteron Altixes
    > themselves? They don't need a buyout from Sun to do something like that.

    > Yousuf Khan

    SGI's market is technical computing. Itanium is a good fit.

    Anil
  11. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <lFugc.192033$SQE.118436@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
    "Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> writes:
    |> "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
    |> news:c5ts8n$4rj$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
    |>
    |> > That is very much oversimplifying the case - anyway, the technical
    |> > advantages of the Altix have very little to do with the Itanium
    |> > and a lot to do with memory management. If Sun bought SGI, it would
    |> > make more sense for any new range of Altix to use Opteron in it.
    |>
    |> If that's the case, then why wouldn't SGI just start selling Opteron Altixes
    |> themselves? They don't need a buyout from Sun to do something like that.

    I have difficulty in believing that you are naive enough to ask that
    question seriously. But, just in case you are:

    1) Money. SGI is very short of it. Investing in a new chip
    takes money to develop and test the hardware and software.

    2) Contracts. Some of those with Intel may be exclusive, at
    least for now. SGI signed the deal with Intel when Intel had the
    whip hand.

    3) Commercial politics. Intel bears serious grudge, and SGI
    can't afford to be on the receiving end from Intel.

    Only (2) would remain valid if Sun - or, indeed, pretty well any
    other company - took over SGI.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <734da31c.0404190132.396b87b0@posting.google.com>,
    icerq4a@spray.se (David Svensson) writes:
    |> Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<u5u5801tlqbqqktcsa78gvrec42s8ugfhv@4ax.com>...
    |>
    |> > So, what solution does Sun have? A little chip called "Niagara". 8
    |> > cores, each capable of executing 4 threads simultaneously. It's
    |> > single threaded performance won't even be half that of the Itanium,
    |> > but for multithreaded performance it will SMOKE anything Intel has in
    |> > the pipeline before "Tanglewood" in 2007/08, and it will do so with
    |> > about half the power consumption (or less) and a smaller die.
    |>
    |> SMOKE?

    You're quite right - it's the Victoria annd Blue Nile Falls that
    are "the water that smokes".


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Anil T Maliyekke" <amaliy1@icarus.cc.uic.edu> wrote in message
    news:c5vms7$dm3$1@newsx.cc.uic.edu...
    > In comp.arch Yousuf Khan <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
    > > If that's the case, then why wouldn't SGI just start selling Opteron
    Altixes
    > > themselves? They don't need a buyout from Sun to do something like that.
    >
    > > Yousuf Khan
    >
    > SGI's market is technical computing. Itanium is a good fit.

    It seems to be Cray's market as well, and they're doing it all with two
    different types of Opteron servers.

    Yousuf Khan
  14. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
    news:c5vuj3$okb$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
    > 1) Money. SGI is very short of it. Investing in a new chip
    > takes money to develop and test the hardware and software.

    Which seems to be the biggest calling card for Opterons. Don't have a lot of
    money (or at least don't feel like spending it) to develop a server on your
    own? Just go Opteron and buy from a bunch of prepackaged barebones systems
    and engineer your own badge.

    > 2) Contracts. Some of those with Intel may be exclusive, at
    > least for now. SGI signed the deal with Intel when Intel had the
    > whip hand.

    This one is possible, but Intel only controls an advertising budget whip
    hand. A lot of companies (such as HP and IBM) are simply getting around it
    by not advertising non-Intel systems, but selling non-Intel nonetheless.
    Some are even advertising them with a separate ad stream.

    > 3) Commercial politics. Intel bears serious grudge, and SGI
    > can't afford to be on the receiving end from Intel.

    Definitely SGI can't afford it, unlike Sun or various others. I wonder if
    SGI would switch to 64-bit Xeons eventually though?

    Yousuf Khan
  15. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <bWRgc.32353$9kJ.30573@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
    "Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> writes:
    |>
    |> > 2) Contracts. Some of those with Intel may be exclusive, at
    |> > least for now. SGI signed the deal with Intel when Intel had the
    |> > whip hand.
    |>
    |> This one is possible, but Intel only controls an advertising budget whip
    |> hand. A lot of companies (such as HP and IBM) are simply getting around it
    |> by not advertising non-Intel systems, but selling non-Intel nonetheless.
    |> Some are even advertising them with a separate ad stream.

    That is not true. Intel used its position to get some 'interesting'
    clauses added into at least some agreements.

    That was almost certainly impossible with either IBM or HP, both of
    which were never in the subservient position that SGI, Dell etc.
    were at the time of Intel's maximum ascendency. This MAY be part
    of the reason that it is IBM and HP that have broken away from the
    Intel line. The same applies, to some extent, to some Japanese
    companies.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
    news:c60rgr$lpv$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
    > That is not true. Intel used its position to get some 'interesting'
    > clauses added into at least some agreements.
    >
    > That was almost certainly impossible with either IBM or HP, both of
    > which were never in the subservient position that SGI, Dell etc.
    > were at the time of Intel's maximum ascendency. This MAY be part
    > of the reason that it is IBM and HP that have broken away from the
    > Intel line. The same applies, to some extent, to some Japanese
    > companies.

    The only thing that seems to be allowing some of these aforementioned
    Japanese companies to break away from the line is that they are no longer
    afraid of Intel. No written contracts (which Intel is too smart to do), just
    implied threats of supplies being cut off. But now it looks like the
    Japanese don't care, and neither do HP or IBM.

    Yousuf Khan
  17. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <2JVgc.36772$9kJ.6022@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
    Yousuf Khan <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
    >"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
    >news:c60rgr$lpv$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
    >> That is not true. Intel used its position to get some 'interesting'
    >> clauses added into at least some agreements.
    >>
    >> That was almost certainly impossible with either IBM or HP, both of
    >> which were never in the subservient position that SGI, Dell etc.
    >> were at the time of Intel's maximum ascendency. This MAY be part
    >> of the reason that it is IBM and HP that have broken away from the
    >> Intel line. The same applies, to some extent, to some Japanese
    >> companies.
    >
    >The only thing that seems to be allowing some of these aforementioned
    >Japanese companies to break away from the line is that they are no longer
    >afraid of Intel. No written contracts (which Intel is too smart to do), just
    >implied threats of supplies being cut off. But now it looks like the
    >Japanese don't care, and neither do HP or IBM.

    Er, there assuredly WILL be written contracts with Intel. But I am
    certain that they are absolutely kosher. If there is any pressure
    that isn't, I agree that it won't be in writing, but I have no
    evidence that Intel has stepped over the legal line. Intel doubtless
    has a large supply of M'Learned Fiends who would jump on anyone who
    implied the contrary ....

    It is perfectly legal for a contract to require an exclusive product,
    and I have reason to believe that some contracts with Intel do just
    that. The point is that Intel could get away with it when they had
    the whip hand, which they never did with HP and IBM to the extent
    that they did with SGI and Dell.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<u5u5801tlqbqqktcsa78gvrec42s8ugfhv@4ax.com>...
    >
    > So, what solution does Sun have? A little chip called "Niagara". 8
    > cores, each capable of executing 4 threads simultaneously. It's
    > single threaded performance won't even be half that of the Itanium,
    > but for multithreaded performance it will SMOKE anything Intel has in
    > the pipeline before "Tanglewood" in 2007/08, and it will do so with
    > about half the power consumption (or less) and a smaller die.
    >

    "single threaded performance won't even be half that of the Itanium"
    is sort of understatement. Even biggest optimists at Sun would be
    surprised if Niagara achieves 25% of Montecito's single-threaded
    performance. My bet - under 20% on all but most ugly zero-ILP
    workloads. Most likely we will never know since Sun isn't going to
    publish single-threaded benchmarks.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On 19 Apr 2004 02:32:15 -0700, icerq4a@spray.se (David Svensson)
    wrote:
    >> First off, for their servers they are looking for throughput. High
    >> single threaded performance is pretty pointless as compared to high
    >> multithreaded performance. Sun is very well positioned in this market
    >> because of their software, Solaris is probably the best operating
    >> system on the planet when it comes to scalability (with the possible
    >> exception of AIX). However the hardware side of things helps Sun out
    >> here as well. Good I/O is very important for performance in this
    >> market while raw number crunching isn't such a big deal.
    >
    >If you have a 16 core machine and 128 core machine and they both
    >perform a task with similar performance which one do you choose? What
    >is the obvious answer to that?

    The "cheaper" system of course, with cheaper being measured as some
    sort of TCO (ie a rather fuzzy number).

    >> So, what solution does Sun have? A little chip called "Niagara". 8
    >> cores, each capable of executing 4 threads simultaneously. It's
    >> single threaded performance won't even be half that of the Itanium,
    >> but for multithreaded performance it will SMOKE anything Intel has in
    >> the pipeline before "Tanglewood" in 2007/08, and it will do so with
    >> about half the power consumption (or less) and a smaller die.
    >
    >SMOKE?
    >How can you know this? As far as I know very little is made public
    >about Niagara, but you make lots of claims here.

    Enough has been made public about Niagara to figure this one out.
    It's a chip with 8 simple SPARC cores on it, each capable of running 4
    threads. Even if the individual Itanium chips are MUCH faster,
    they'll only be running one or two threads until "Tukwila" (as you
    hint at bellow, the code-name "Tanglewood" has been changed to
    "Tukwila"). That means that the Itanium will have to be MUCH faster
    than the individual Niagara core to perform the same in a heavily
    multithreaded environment, at least 4 times faster (assuming dual-core
    Itaniums), and quite possibly much more than that if the SMT
    performance of Niagara works out like Sun says it will. Considering
    that Intel's plans for Itanium over the next few years consist of
    little other than increasing the cache size and going to dual-core
    designs, I don't think they'll come close. Increasing cache size
    helps, but it's a case of fairly rapidly decreasing returns (how much
    does your hit rate increase when going from 9MB of cache to 12MB? I
    would guess it's MUCH lower than 1%). Dual-core is a good start, but
    they'll be rather late to the game (at least a year away still).

    > I also think the
    >latest was that Niagara would be released in 2006, the same year
    >Tukwila is supposed to be released. Perhaps Niagara can be released
    >before Tukwila, but I don't think there will be over a year between.

    Niagara is scheduled for 2005, though I expect it to be delayed until
    2006. Tukwila is also scheduled for 2006, though as I mentioned
    previously, Sun has an existing market so they have a bit more
    flexibility in timing. Intel needs to build their market so they need
    to execute much better. Customers will delay for a little while to
    get an easy upgrade rather than make a difficult upgrade right away.
    They will not delay in order to make a difficult upgrade if such a
    change can be avoided altogether.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  20. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<o2k980phj7us0v6idt3n1jb0his8g7vns3@4ax.com>...
    > On 19 Apr 2004 02:32:15 -0700, icerq4a@spray.se (David Svensson)
    > wrote:
    > >> First off, for their servers they are looking for throughput. High
    > >> single threaded performance is pretty pointless as compared to high
    > >> multithreaded performance. Sun is very well positioned in this market
    > >> because of their software, Solaris is probably the best operating
    > >> system on the planet when it comes to scalability (with the possible
    > >> exception of AIX). However the hardware side of things helps Sun out
    > >> here as well. Good I/O is very important for performance in this
    > >> market while raw number crunching isn't such a big deal.
    > >
    > >If you have a 16 core machine and 128 core machine and they both
    > >perform a task with similar performance which one do you choose? What
    > >is the obvious answer to that?
    >
    > The "cheaper" system of course, with cheaper being measured as some
    > sort of TCO (ie a rather fuzzy number).
    >
    > >> So, what solution does Sun have? A little chip called "Niagara". 8
    > >> cores, each capable of executing 4 threads simultaneously. It's
    > >> single threaded performance won't even be half that of the Itanium,
    > >> but for multithreaded performance it will SMOKE anything Intel has in
    > >> the pipeline before "Tanglewood" in 2007/08, and it will do so with
    > >> about half the power consumption (or less) and a smaller die.
    > >
    > >SMOKE?
    > >How can you know this? As far as I know very little is made public
    > >about Niagara, but you make lots of claims here.
    >
    > Enough has been made public about Niagara to figure this one out.
    > It's a chip with 8 simple SPARC cores on it, each capable of running 4
    > threads. Even if the individual Itanium chips are MUCH faster,
    > they'll only be running one or two threads until "Tukwila" (as you
    > hint at bellow, the code-name "Tanglewood" has been changed to
    > "Tukwila"). That means that the Itanium will have to be MUCH faster
    > than the individual Niagara core to perform the same in a heavily
    > multithreaded environment, at least 4 times faster (assuming dual-core
    > Itaniums), and quite possibly much more than that if the SMT
    > performance of Niagara works out like Sun says it will. Considering
    > that Intel's plans for Itanium over the next few years consist of
    > little other than increasing the cache size and going to dual-core
    > designs, I don't think they'll come close. Increasing cache size
    > helps, but it's a case of fairly rapidly decreasing returns (how much
    > does your hit rate increase when going from 9MB of cache to 12MB? I
    > would guess it's MUCH lower than 1%). Dual-core is a good start, but
    > they'll be rather late to the game (at least a year away still).

    Niagara will have very slow 1-issue wide cores most likely a bit
    slower than UltraSparc II. Niagara will not have SMT, it is vertical
    multithreading. Niagara will not be SMP cabable (, well it is SMP in
    itself but it will be alone.)

    Sun will only place them in their blade servers, and they will compete
    with 1-2 and perhaps 4-way x86 servers. I really don't see that
    Niagara is in the same arena as Itanium. You are a bit wrong too about
    next years Itanium (Montecito), it will have 2-way multithreading on
    each core, thus appearing as 4 CPUs to the OS.

    It looks like Sun is stuck with UltraSparc IV in their general purpose
    servers and high-end servers until Rock might appear in 2007.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message news:<VRsgc.10432$Mzw.2885@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
    > Not offering any opinions myself, just relaying an article:
    >
    > http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6757
    >
    > Yousuf Khan

    Itanium is a ugly architecture,
    While I like the predication because you can describe
    both paths of the branches and not take a
    branch mis-prediction hit, but....

    First, The software-pipelining feature is extremely
    convoluted piece to understand. It uses the
    predication registers and the stack engine
    together to work, but what happens when you are
    already using the predication registers??
    Plus this makes the RSE engine more complicated.
    Alot of the stuff is done behind some scene.
    Or with alot of hand waving. Which is bad
    when you are programming in Assembly language.
    Believe me, I've done programming in IA64 Assembly
    language for work and alot of the examples
    given by Intel I could not make heads or tails.

    Second, because of the instructions bundles/groups
    design, you have to pad the instruction slots
    with NOOPs if you can't find exactly three instructions
    per group. Hence, the instruction cache is effectively very small.

    Third, There is NO integer multiple nor integer divide!!!
    So you have to move the values over to the
    Floating point unit. Well, what happens if the
    FPU is busy doing loops?? Do you want to
    interrupt whatever the FPU is doing just for
    your integer multiplication that integer ALUs can't do??

    If you look carefully at the IA64, It's really a
    descendant of HP's PA RISC architecture.
    IA64's no integer multiply comes from HP-PA,
    so is the Shift-Left-and-Add instructions.
    Even the instruction encoding within the groups are
    the same as HP-PA RISC.

    IA64 = HP PA RISC instructions/encoding +
    VLIW/EPIC concepts/ideas +
    x86 emulation
  22. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Wow" <chfong@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:203e73fa.0404200810.297bcbc4@posting.google.com...
    > "Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
    news:<VRsgc.10432$Mzw.2885@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
    > > Not offering any opinions myself, just relaying an article:
    > >
    > > http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6757
    > >
    > > Yousuf Khan
    >
    > Itanium is a ugly architecture,
    > While I like the predication because you can describe
    > both paths of the branches and not take a
    > branch mis-prediction hit, but....
    >
    > First, The software-pipelining feature is extremely
    > convoluted piece to understand. It uses the
    > predication registers and the stack engine
    > together to work, but what happens when you are
    > already using the predication registers??
    > Plus this makes the RSE engine more complicated.
    > Alot of the stuff is done behind some scene.
    > Or with alot of hand waving. Which is bad
    > when you are programming in Assembly language.
    > Believe me, I've done programming in IA64 Assembly
    > language for work and alot of the examples
    > given by Intel I could not make heads or tails.

    Then let it to the compilers.

    > Second, because of the instructions bundles/groups
    > design, you have to pad the instruction slots
    > with NOOPs if you can't find exactly three instructions
    > per group. Hence, the instruction cache is effectively very small.

    Had you seen optimized Alpha binaries? They contain lot
    of NOPs, too.

    > Third, There is NO integer multiple nor integer divide!!!
    > So you have to move the values over to the
    > Floating point unit. Well, what happens if the
    > FPU is busy doing loops?? Do you want to
    > interrupt whatever the FPU is doing just for
    > your integer multiplication that integer ALUs can't do??

    You can do 32x32 integer multiplication on Itanium without
    FP unit. Visual C does this.

    Thanks,
    Eugene

    > If you look carefully at the IA64, It's really a
    > descendant of HP's PA RISC architecture.
    > IA64's no integer multiply comes from HP-PA,
    > so is the Shift-Left-and-Add instructions.
    > Even the instruction encoding within the groups are
    > the same as HP-PA RISC.
    >
    > IA64 = HP PA RISC instructions/encoding +
    > VLIW/EPIC concepts/ideas +
    > x86 emulation
  23. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:o2k980phj7us0v6idt3n1jb0his8g7vns3@4ax.com...
    >
    > Increasing cache size
    > helps, but it's a case of fairly rapidly decreasing returns (how
    much
    > does your hit rate increase when going from 9MB of cache to 12MB? I
    > would guess it's MUCH lower than 1%).

    Tony, the "hit rate" doesn't matter. What matters is the miss rate.
    Honest.

    If the miss rate drops from 2% to 1%, then the average memory latency
    nearly drops in half ("nearly" because the cache has _some_ latency,
    after all). That corresponds to a hit rate of 98% vs 99%, "only" a 1%
    increase.

    The question about going from 9MB to 13MB cache is (as you have
    frequently pointed out :) whether the increase is cost-effective at
    the system level. It's all about bang per buck.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
    news:c61eup$8qa$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
    > It is perfectly legal for a contract to require an exclusive product,
    > and I have reason to believe that some contracts with Intel do just
    > that. The point is that Intel could get away with it when they had
    > the whip hand, which they never did with HP and IBM to the extent
    > that they did with SGI and Dell.

    Sure, Intel is perfectly entitled to say that we don't want you to advertise
    our competitors products with the ad money that we give you. However, Intel
    is anything but entitled to say we don't want you to sell our competitor's
    products if you want our ad money. Just one of those fine lines that are
    differentiated in anti-trust laws. Intel would never be stupid enough to say
    the latter, it would be hauled into court right away by the government.
    However, that's not to say that Intel can't put in some suitably vague
    clauses in their contracts which would allow it to pull supplies from
    customers who are "non-compliant" with their advertising dollars policies.

    Yousuf Khan
  25. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <Os9hc.3804$h941.100@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
    "Yousuf Khan" <news.tally.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> writes:
    |> "Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
    |> news:c61eup$8qa$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
    |> > It is perfectly legal for a contract to require an exclusive product,
    |> > and I have reason to believe that some contracts with Intel do just
    |> > that. The point is that Intel could get away with it when they had
    |> > the whip hand, which they never did with HP and IBM to the extent
    |> > that they did with SGI and Dell.
    |>
    |> Sure, Intel is perfectly entitled to say that we don't want you to advertise
    |> our competitors products with the ad money that we give you. However, Intel
    |> is anything but entitled to say we don't want you to sell our competitor's
    |> products if you want our ad money. Just one of those fine lines that are
    |> differentiated in anti-trust laws. Intel would never be stupid enough to say
    |> the latter, it would be hauled into court right away by the government.

    Ah. Fascinating. I suspect that you have been reading more into
    those laws than is there. There are constraints, but they are much
    less absolute than you seem to think.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    What's Dell's Opteron strategy?

    John
    groenveld@acm.org
  27. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <je258014dfifr3n9dil859e1tp4q9itno0@4ax.com>,
    Robert Myers <rmyers@rustuck.com> wrote:
    >Why would Sun settle with Microsoft?

    To concentrate on IBM and Intel.

    John
    groenveld@acm.org
  28. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> writes:

    > Enough has been made public about Niagara to figure this one out.
    > It's a chip with 8 simple SPARC cores on it, each capable of
    > running 4 threads. Even if the individual Itanium chips are MUCH

    Of interest may be Ace's Hardware recently posted article describing
    "Niagra":

    http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=65000292

    --
    David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
    Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
    the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
    under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
  29. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:

    >I have difficulty in believing that you are naive enough to ask that
    >question seriously. But, just in case you are:

    > 1) Money. SGI is very short of it. Investing in a new chip
    >takes money to develop and test the hardware and software.

    > 2) Contracts. Some of those with Intel may be exclusive, at
    >least for now. SGI signed the deal with Intel when Intel had the
    >whip hand.

    > 3) Commercial politics. Intel bears serious grudge, and SGI
    >can't afford to be on the receiving end from Intel.


    I think that SGI signing on with IA64 early means they probably don't
    have any contractual reason they couldn't go with Opteron. Back in
    the late 90s when they signed on, Intel didn't have any reason to think
    that AMD could ever be a threat to the 64 bit market Itanium was
    targeting, so it would have never been mentioned in the contract.

    1) is valid, however since SGI used much the same hardware to work
    with MIPS and IA64, making it work with Opteron shouldn't be all that
    difficult, especially since its architecture would lend itself
    perfectly to SGI's cellular architecture.

    3) is the big one, SGI would have to be ready to give up any sort of
    preferential treatment regarding pricing or allocation they may have
    been able to get in exchange for agreeing to phase out MIPS. But unless
    IA64 suddenly takes off, I don't think SGI has to worry about shortages
    meaning they can't get any parts as sometimes happens with Pentiums and
    uncooperative OEMs. HP probably gets first dibs on everything anyway.

    --
    Douglas Siebert dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net

    When hiring, avoid unlucky people, they are a risk to the firm. Do this by
    randomly tossing out 90% of the resumes you receive without looking at them.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <c658fj$f8i$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
    nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
    >
    > In article <c656sa$8586r$3@ID-125976.news.uni-berlin.de>,
    > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen-not@mediasec.de> writes:
    >|>
    >|> > 3) is the big one, SGI would have to be ready to give up any sort of
    >|> > preferential treatment regarding pricing or allocation they may have
    >|> > been able to get in exchange for agreeing to phase out MIPS.
    >|>
    >|> Is a slight (<50%) change in processor price going to have any impact on
    >|> product pricing for the stuff SGI is selling? I strongly doubt that. And
    >|> allocation for IA64 processors - is that really happening?
    >
    > The issues have very little to do with pricing, and a great deal
    > to do with influence on the details and access to very detailed
    > (internal) information. This statement is not specific to SGI and
    > Intel, but applies to almost all such deals - such as IBM and Apple.
    > It also applies to committments to delivery and dates, like the
    > need to avoid fiascos like the "it's off - no, it's on" Merced.

    Whilst this might be the case in the x86 space, I doubt it's the
    case in the IA64 space. There the boot is on the other foot, with
    most of the IHVs for the product having abandoned it, leaving just
    HP with any volume at all, and nowhere near enough for the chip to
    remain viable. I suspect Intel would welcome any new IHV with
    open arms, but with x86-IA32e announced, it's most unlikely any IHV
    will commit further development funding to IA64 systems from now
    on (except possibly HP who bet the company on it), as it's clear
    that isn't going top be Intel's volume chip.

    > I have no idea of what is in any of the SGI/Intel contracts, or
    > I couldn't post. Nor do I have any first- or second-hand data on
    > on how Intel behaves behind closed doors, but there is a fair amount
    > of indirect information around.

    --
    Andrew Gabriel
    Consultant Software Engineer
  31. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    > 3) is the big one, SGI would have to be ready to give up any sort of
    > preferential treatment regarding pricing or allocation they may have
    > been able to get in exchange for agreeing to phase out MIPS.

    Is a slight (<50%) change in processor price going to have any impact on
    product pricing for the stuff SGI is selling? I strongly doubt that. And
    allocation for IA64 processors - is that really happening?

    Jan
  32. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <c656sa$8586r$3@ID-125976.news.uni-berlin.de>,
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen-not@mediasec.de> writes:
    |>
    |> > 3) is the big one, SGI would have to be ready to give up any sort of
    |> > preferential treatment regarding pricing or allocation they may have
    |> > been able to get in exchange for agreeing to phase out MIPS.
    |>
    |> Is a slight (<50%) change in processor price going to have any impact on
    |> product pricing for the stuff SGI is selling? I strongly doubt that. And
    |> allocation for IA64 processors - is that really happening?

    The issues have very little to do with pricing, and a great deal
    to do with influence on the details and access to very detailed
    (internal) information. This statement is not specific to SGI and
    Intel, but applies to almost all such deals - such as IBM and Apple.
    It also applies to committments to delivery and dates, like the
    need to avoid fiascos like the "it's off - no, it's on" Merced.

    I have no idea of what is in any of the SGI/Intel contracts, or
    I couldn't post. Nor do I have any first- or second-hand data on
    on how Intel behaves behind closed doors, but there is a fair amount
    of indirect information around.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    John D Groenveld wrote:

    > What's Dell's Opteron strategy?

    Tell Intel that they'll build an Opteron based system until Intel's special
    Dell discount is big enough.

    --
    Bernd Paysan
    "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
    http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
  34. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Andrew Gabriel" <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:c65b8m$gi6$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...
    > Whilst this might be the case in the x86 space, I doubt it's the
    > case in the IA64 space. There the boot is on the other foot, with
    > most of the IHVs for the product having abandoned it, leaving just
    > HP with any volume at all, and nowhere near enough for the chip to
    > remain viable. I suspect Intel would welcome any new IHV with
    > open arms, but with x86-IA32e announced, it's most unlikely any IHV
    > will commit further development funding to IA64 systems from now
    > on (except possibly HP who bet the company on it), as it's clear
    > that isn't going top be Intel's volume chip.

    Except HP is also the biggest hedger, being now the biggest committer to
    Opteron (the only major OEM with a 4-way system so far), as well as Itanium.
    But I guess HP has got enough money to go both ways, unlike SGI.

    Yousuf Khan
  35. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:08:15 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
    <news.20.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

    >"Andrew Gabriel" <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    >news:c65b8m$gi6$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com...
    >> Whilst this might be the case in the x86 space, I doubt it's the
    >> case in the IA64 space. There the boot is on the other foot, with
    >> most of the IHVs for the product having abandoned it, leaving just
    >> HP with any volume at all, and nowhere near enough for the chip to
    >> remain viable. I suspect Intel would welcome any new IHV with
    >> open arms, but with x86-IA32e announced, it's most unlikely any IHV
    >> will commit further development funding to IA64 systems from now
    >> on (except possibly HP who bet the company on it), as it's clear
    >> that isn't going top be Intel's volume chip.
    >
    >Except HP is also the biggest hedger, being now the biggest committer to
    >Opteron (the only major OEM with a 4-way system so far), as well as Itanium.
    >But I guess HP has got enough money to go both ways, unlike SGI.

    I don't know if it's still like that but I recall years ago that HP wasn't
    so much a company with corporate synergy as a group of independent
    divisions which did pretty much what they liked... without talking to each
    other. I distinctly recall being at a conference/exhibit once where HP had
    three separate booths all pushing some variant of "the PC" and who seemed
    reluctant to acknowledge each others' existence.:-)

    I find it very significant that they now have AMD systems in their
    "Corporate PC" repertoire... something that Intel seems to have prevented
    happening at various vendors until recently. I get the feeling the tide is
    turning - add in Intel's Xeon only 64-bit and the door is open more than a
    crack IMO.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  36. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > Not offering any opinions myself, just relaying an article:
    >
    > http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6757
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >

    I seem to have stumbled upon this late. Since it seems that everyone has
    neglected to google for old stories about the Solaris port to IA64 here
    are a few. I am not in a position to make any comment (other than noting
    that they are all old stories).

    http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2871375,00.html
    http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/9910/sunflash.991025.4.html
    http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-243489.html

    The point, such as it is, that the article's claim "But, the company is
    still averse to porting Solaris over to Itanium" is and was clearly
    false. Porting occured. What happened after that is either available in
    the press or is company confidential :>
  37. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:
    > I don't know if it's still like that but I recall years ago that HP wasn't
    > so much a company with corporate synergy as a group of independent
    > divisions which did pretty much what they liked... without talking to each
    > other. I distinctly recall being at a conference/exhibit once where HP had
    > three separate booths all pushing some variant of "the PC" and who seemed
    > reluctant to acknowledge each others' existence.:-)

    Any large corporation doesn't really speak with one voice. Internally
    there will always be divisions competing with each other for corporate
    resources and the permission to sell their wares externally. It must
    be interesting to be a fly on the conference room wall of Sun or HP.
    The lobbying by the old guard to keep out the faster and cheaper
    upstart must be intense.

    -wolfgang
    --
    Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
  38. Archived from groups: alt.solaris.x86,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:18:04 GMT, "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht"
    <wolfgang+gnus20040422T110458@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com> wrote:

    >
    >George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:
    >> I don't know if it's still like that but I recall years ago that HP wasn't
    >> so much a company with corporate synergy as a group of independent
    >> divisions which did pretty much what they liked... without talking to each
    >> other. I distinctly recall being at a conference/exhibit once where HP had
    >> three separate booths all pushing some variant of "the PC" and who seemed
    >> reluctant to acknowledge each others' existence.:-)
    >
    >Any large corporation doesn't really speak with one voice. Internally
    >there will always be divisions competing with each other for corporate
    >resources and the permission to sell their wares externally. It must
    >be interesting to be a fly on the conference room wall of Sun or HP.
    >The lobbying by the old guard to keep out the faster and cheaper
    >upstart must be intense.

    Some truth in that but when three different divisions were producing near
    identical hardware and pushing it separately on the market... I find it
    umm, unusual.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Switch