Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sun has to switch to Itanium?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2004 2:35:33 PM

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 ;-)

More about : sun switch itanium

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2004 2:35:34 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2004 4:28:07 PM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2004 4:38:40 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2004 4:38:41 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2004 4:38:41 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2004 9:37:36 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2004 10:01:12 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2004 6:32:15 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2004 8:31:03 AM

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??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2004 9:08:23 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2004 11:20:03 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2004 1:38:14 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2004 7:06:46 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2004 7:06:47 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2004 7:33:47 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2004 11:25:50 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2004 1:05:29 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2004 6:17:46 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2004 7:59:06 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2004 12:00:09 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2004 1:10:26 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2004 3:37:21 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2004 3:45:27 PM

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:o 2k980phj7us0v6idt3n1jb0his8g7vns3@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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2004 5:20:46 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2004 5:37:55 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2004 8:22:41 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2004 8:26:11 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2004 12:11:15 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2004 6:54:25 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2004 12:27:02 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2004 1:12:09 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2004 1:12:10 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2004 8:37:52 PM

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/
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2004 10:08:15 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2004 9:07:45 AM

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.[I love mixing metaphors:-)]

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2004 3:39:16 PM

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/0,1...
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/9910/sunflash.991...
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 :>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2004 10:18:04 PM

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/
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2004 6:05:06 PM

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??
!