How long will Northwoods be available?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Anyone know? I'd like to buy one when it gets down to $100
(which is still quite a lot for a CPU, but whaddaya gonna do?).

Tony
25 answers Last reply
More about long northwoods available
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    tony wrote:

    > Anyone know? I'd like to buy one when it gets down to $100
    > (which is still quite a lot for a CPU, but whaddaya gonna do?).
    >
    >

    I wouldn't hold your breath. I bet they run out before the price drops under
    $100 for any of the faster grades. Even the 1.8a's are still hovering above
    that price point with the 2.8C's around $175.

    --

    Stacey
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:2hledpFeb7s1U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > tony wrote:
    >
    > > Anyone know? I'd like to buy one when it gets down to $100
    > > (which is still quite a lot for a CPU, but whaddaya gonna do?).
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I wouldn't hold your breath. I bet they run out before the price drops under
    > $100 for any of the faster grades. Even the 1.8a's are still hovering above
    > that price point with the 2.8C's around $175.

    Has production of the Northwoods stopped?

    Tony
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 27 May 2004 07:03:30 GMT, "tony"
    <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


    >Has production of the Northwoods stopped?
    >
    >Tony
    >

    Intel would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did that right
    now.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:42:13 GMT, "tony"
    <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    >Anyone know? I'd like to buy one when it gets down to $100
    >(which is still quite a lot for a CPU, but whaddaya gonna do?).
    >
    >Tony
    >

    Switch to AMD if you want to buy cheap and powerful cpu's. I'm using
    Intel on two PC's right now but I'm going to switch one of them to AMD
    soon.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    The correct answer to that question is another question:
    "Why would anyone with half an ounce of brains care?"

    Intel has nothing for the desktop market that can compete
    with the various AMD64 processors. In the 2 way and 4 way
    server market, there are a few cases where Itanic is a good
    choice, but Opty beats Xeon in pretty much everything and
    also beats Itanic in most things.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Sean Ridge" <Sean@noemail.invalid> wrote in message
    news:m3fcb05an854io70eh2qqknsegnn2u5e99@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 27 May 2004 07:03:30 GMT, "tony"
    > <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >Has production of the Northwoods stopped?
    > >
    > >Tony
    > >
    >
    > Intel would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did that right
    > now.

    That's my opinion too.

    Tony
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "Sean Ridge" <Sean@noemail.invalid> wrote in message
    news:05fcb0hgjhugnn9icmivn4lhlrrqqehdth@4ax.com...
    > On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:42:13 GMT, "tony"
    > <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Anyone know? I'd like to buy one when it gets down to $100
    > >(which is still quite a lot for a CPU, but whaddaya gonna do?).
    > >
    > >Tony
    > >
    >
    > Switch to AMD if you want to buy cheap and powerful cpu's. I'm using
    > Intel on two PC's right now but I'm going to switch one of them to AMD
    > soon.

    When Prescotts are the only Intel option, I may do just that! I wonder if
    AMD has any plans on making its own motherboards (though that would
    probably wipe out 3rd party motherboards all together). I tend to view
    motherboards and processors as inseparable units.

    Tony
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 03:28:59 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Sean Ridge" <Sean@noemail.invalid> wrote in message
    >news:05fcb0hgjhugnn9icmivn4lhlrrqqehdth@4ax.com...
    >> On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:42:13 GMT, "tony"
    >> <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Anyone know? I'd like to buy one when it gets down to $100
    >> >(which is still quite a lot for a CPU, but whaddaya gonna do?).
    >> >
    >> >Tony
    >> >
    >>
    >> Switch to AMD if you want to buy cheap and powerful cpu's. I'm using
    >> Intel on two PC's right now but I'm going to switch one of them to AMD
    >> soon.
    >
    >When Prescotts are the only Intel option, I may do just that! I wonder if
    >AMD has any plans on making its own motherboards (though that would
    >probably wipe out 3rd party motherboards all together). I tend to view
    >motherboards and processors as inseparable units.

    Your "view" is, to say the least, out of date. Some of the better brand
    mbrds, like Asus, MSI, Tyan are the equal of, or better than, anything with
    the Intel name on them, in the desktop space anyway. Everything is made to
    a price point.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

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

    On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 03:28:59 GMT, "tony"
    <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


    >When Prescotts are the only Intel option, I may do just that! I wonder if
    >AMD has any plans on making its own motherboards (though that would
    >probably wipe out 3rd party motherboards all together). I tend to view
    >motherboards and processors as inseparable units.
    >
    >Tony
    >

    AMD has made chipsets in the past but I think they got out of that biz
    too. MB's from Asus and Abit using Nvidia chipsets are good AMD
    platforms.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:

    >
    >
    > Despite what some of us may like to think, we're in the definite
    > minority in this newsgroup in that we actually LIKE looking at the
    > nitty-gritty of computer internals.
    >

    It's just like when buying a car. Most people just ask stuff like "Is it a
    V6?", "How big is the engine" "How much are the payments" etc. Some people
    might ask for HP numbers. Very few would research the power to weight
    ratio, disk brake diameters/stopping distances, torque curve etc.


    --

    Stacey
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
    news:agbob0prb598gkr0sfdbkbst3kplhjr3qv@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 03:28:59 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Sean Ridge" <Sean@noemail.invalid> wrote in message
    > >news:05fcb0hgjhugnn9icmivn4lhlrrqqehdth@4ax.com...
    > >> On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:42:13 GMT, "tony"
    > >> <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Anyone know? I'd like to buy one when it gets down to $100
    > >> >(which is still quite a lot for a CPU, but whaddaya gonna do?).
    > >> >
    > >> >Tony
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Switch to AMD if you want to buy cheap and powerful cpu's. I'm using
    > >> Intel on two PC's right now but I'm going to switch one of them to AMD
    > >> soon.
    > >
    > >When Prescotts are the only Intel option, I may do just that! I wonder if
    > >AMD has any plans on making its own motherboards (though that would
    > >probably wipe out 3rd party motherboards all together). I tend to view
    > >motherboards and processors as inseparable units.
    >
    > Your "view" is, to say the least, out of date.

    Nah. It's just personal preference/opinion. I don't like to bother with the
    also-rans. ;)
    For me, there's nothing that compelling with other boards unless of course an
    AMD
    CPU is being used. Here's how I simply divide it (desktops):

    A. Intel CPU & MB,
    B. AMD CPU & Asus MB.

    The rest I don't bother looking at anymore. Servers of course are always all
    Intel. :)

    > Some of the better brand
    > mbrds, like Asus, MSI, Tyan are the equal of, or better than, anything with
    > the Intel name on them, in the desktop space anyway. Everything is made to
    > a price point.

    Tony
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 08:42:24 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
    >news:agbob0prb598gkr0sfdbkbst3kplhjr3qv@4ax.com...
    >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 03:28:59 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >"Sean Ridge" <Sean@noemail.invalid> wrote in message
    >> >news:05fcb0hgjhugnn9icmivn4lhlrrqqehdth@4ax.com...
    >> >> On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:42:13 GMT, "tony"
    >> >> <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >Anyone know? I'd like to buy one when it gets down to $100
    >> >> >(which is still quite a lot for a CPU, but whaddaya gonna do?).
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Tony
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Switch to AMD if you want to buy cheap and powerful cpu's. I'm using
    >> >> Intel on two PC's right now but I'm going to switch one of them to AMD
    >> >> soon.
    >> >
    >> >When Prescotts are the only Intel option, I may do just that! I wonder if
    >> >AMD has any plans on making its own motherboards (though that would
    >> >probably wipe out 3rd party motherboards all together). I tend to view
    >> >motherboards and processors as inseparable units.
    >>
    >> Your "view" is, to say the least, out of date.
    >
    >Nah. It's just personal preference/opinion. I don't like to bother with the
    >also-rans. ;)
    >For me, there's nothing that compelling with other boards unless of course an
    >AMD
    >CPU is being used. Here's how I simply divide it (desktops):
    >
    >A. Intel CPU & MB,
    >B. AMD CPU & Asus MB.

    This and your previous ramblings just reveal how clueless you are. Some of
    the worst junk in the way of mbrds has been produced by Intel... or with
    the Intel brand name on them. No wonder you end up with systems you are
    unhappy with.

    >The rest I don't bother looking at anymore. Servers of course are always all
    >Intel. :)

    Not for quite a while - Serverworks chipsets were used by Intel for some of
    its own mbrds and would have been used for more of them if the tech folks
    at Intel had been given a chance. Note also that Intel does not own the
    server mbrd market. Now that Intel has cut Serverworks off from new FSB
    iterations, Serverworks has thrown its hat in with AMD and Opteron - should
    be interesting.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

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

    "George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
    news:sperb0pad12k2no0ocvbj12l85mntb066r@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 08:42:24 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
    > >news:agbob0prb598gkr0sfdbkbst3kplhjr3qv@4ax.com...
    > >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 03:28:59 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> >"Sean Ridge" <Sean@noemail.invalid> wrote in message
    > >> >news:05fcb0hgjhugnn9icmivn4lhlrrqqehdth@4ax.com...
    > >> >> On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:42:13 GMT, "tony"
    > >> >> <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >Anyone know? I'd like to buy one when it gets down to $100
    > >> >> >(which is still quite a lot for a CPU, but whaddaya gonna do?).
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >Tony
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Switch to AMD if you want to buy cheap and powerful cpu's. I'm using
    > >> >> Intel on two PC's right now but I'm going to switch one of them to AMD
    > >> >> soon.
    > >> >
    > >> >When Prescotts are the only Intel option, I may do just that! I wonder if
    > >> >AMD has any plans on making its own motherboards (though that would
    > >> >probably wipe out 3rd party motherboards all together). I tend to view
    > >> >motherboards and processors as inseparable units.
    > >>
    > >> Your "view" is, to say the least, out of date.
    > >
    > >Nah. It's just personal preference/opinion. I don't like to bother with the
    > >also-rans. ;)
    > >For me, there's nothing that compelling with other boards unless of course an
    > >AMD
    > >CPU is being used. Here's how I simply divide it (desktops):
    > >
    > >A. Intel CPU & MB,
    > >B. AMD CPU & Asus MB.
    >
    > This and your previous ramblings just reveal how clueless you are.

    Plonk! This weeding out of useless posters really makes getting through
    newsgroup reading quickly! :)

    Tony
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <Klovc.18443$eH1.8274076@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
    tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net says...
    >
    > "George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
    > news:sperb0pad12k2no0ocvbj12l85mntb066r@4ax.com...
    > > On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 08:42:24 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > >"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
    > > >news:agbob0prb598gkr0sfdbkbst3kplhjr3qv@4ax.com...
    > > >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 03:28:59 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    > > >> wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> >
    > > >> >"Sean Ridge" <Sean@noemail.invalid> wrote in message
    > > >> >news:05fcb0hgjhugnn9icmivn4lhlrrqqehdth@4ax.com...
    > > >> >> On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:42:13 GMT, "tony"
    > > >> >> <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >> >Anyone know? I'd like to buy one when it gets down to $100
    > > >> >> >(which is still quite a lot for a CPU, but whaddaya gonna do?).
    > > >> >> >
    > > >> >> >Tony
    > > >> >> >
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >> Switch to AMD if you want to buy cheap and powerful cpu's. I'm using
    > > >> >> Intel on two PC's right now but I'm going to switch one of them to AMD
    > > >> >> soon.
    > > >> >
    > > >> >When Prescotts are the only Intel option, I may do just that! I wonder if
    > > >> >AMD has any plans on making its own motherboards (though that would
    > > >> >probably wipe out 3rd party motherboards all together). I tend to view
    > > >> >motherboards and processors as inseparable units.
    > > >>
    > > >> Your "view" is, to say the least, out of date.
    > > >
    > > >Nah. It's just personal preference/opinion. I don't like to bother with the
    > > >also-rans. ;)
    > > >For me, there's nothing that compelling with other boards unless of course an
    > > >AMD
    > > >CPU is being used. Here's how I simply divide it (desktops):
    > > >
    > > >A. Intel CPU & MB,
    > > >B. AMD CPU & Asus MB.
    > >
    > > This and your previous ramblings just reveal how clueless you are.
    >
    > Plonk! This weeding out of useless posters really makes getting through
    > newsgroup reading quickly! :)

    Amazing! Sooner or later he'll disappear because he'll have
    plonked everyone with any real knowledge! He'll have no one to
    talk to! Good idea, actually.

    --
    Keith
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:52:51 -0400, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 08:42:24 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    >wrote:
    >>The rest I don't bother looking at anymore. Servers of course are always all
    >>Intel. :)
    >
    >Not for quite a while - Serverworks chipsets were used by Intel for some of
    >its own mbrds and would have been used for more of them if the tech folks
    >at Intel had been given a chance. Note also that Intel does not own the
    >server mbrd market. Now that Intel has cut Serverworks off from new FSB
    >iterations, Serverworks has thrown its hat in with AMD and Opteron - should
    >be interesting.

    Why is it that every time I think about this I keep getting this funny
    picture of a guy in an Intel bunny suit in pain, hoping around on one
    foot while holding a smoking gun?

    As for the original posters comments about all-Intel for servers, I
    think the fact that Intel simply does not have a 4 processor
    motherboard in it's entire line-up should tell him something. Intel
    is well behind the 8-ball on the server front right now. Their Xeon
    chips get pretty badly owned by the Opterons in raw 32-bit
    performance, they don't have 64-bit capabilities, they don't have a
    chipset capable of running 4P or 8P servers, they don't have any > 2P
    motherboards, etc. etc.

    I don't know quite what's going on in Intel server camp, maybe they're
    holding back to try and push Itanium instead? Regardless of the
    reason, Intel had better be careful or they're just going to get
    creamed by AMD on this one. AMD is offering better products across
    the board for servers and it's only a matter of time before the Dell's
    of the world realize it.

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

    On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 17:44:10 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
    >news:sperb0pad12k2no0ocvbj12l85mntb066r@4ax.com...
    >> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 08:42:24 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
    >> >news:agbob0prb598gkr0sfdbkbst3kplhjr3qv@4ax.com...
    >> >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 03:28:59 GMT, "tony" <tonySPAMGUARDnews@sbcglobal.net>
    >> >> wrote:
    <<snip>>
    >> >> >When Prescotts are the only Intel option, I may do just that! I wonder if
    >> >> >AMD has any plans on making its own motherboards (though that would
    >> >> >probably wipe out 3rd party motherboards all together). I tend to view
    >> >> >motherboards and processors as inseparable units.
    >> >>
    >> >> Your "view" is, to say the least, out of date.
    >> >
    >> >Nah. It's just personal preference/opinion. I don't like to bother with the
    >> >also-rans. ;)
    >> >For me, there's nothing that compelling with other boards unless of course an
    >> >AMD
    >> >CPU is being used. Here's how I simply divide it (desktops):
    >> >
    >> >A. Intel CPU & MB,
    >> >B. AMD CPU & Asus MB.
    >>
    >> This and your previous ramblings just reveal how clueless you are.
    >
    >Plonk! This weeding out of useless posters really makes getting through
    >newsgroup reading quickly! :)

    Between this and your mysterious revolutionary (proprietary ?) trading
    "model"... <shrug>

    Rgds, George Macdonald

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

    On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:43:35 -0400 Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
    wrote in Message id: <ehdtb0la38hq54qhv7qcfrj23kmcpr7nfl@4ax.com>:

    >As for the original posters comments about all-Intel for servers, I
    >think the fact that Intel simply does not have a 4 processor
    >motherboard in it's entire line-up should tell him something. Intel
    >is well behind the 8-ball on the server front right now. Their Xeon
    >chips get pretty badly owned by the Opterons in raw 32-bit
    >performance, they don't have 64-bit capabilities, they don't have a
    >chipset capable of running 4P or 8P servers, they don't have any > 2P
    >motherboards, etc. etc.

    What about this one with a serverworks chipset?:
    http://www.intel.com/design/servers/blades/sbx44/
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Rob Stow wrote:

    > Intel has nothing for the desktop market that can compete
    > with the various AMD64 processors. In the 2 way and 4 way
    > server market, there are a few cases where Itanic is a good
    > choice, but Opty beats Xeon in pretty much everything and
    > also beats Itanic in most things.

    And yet "Itanium and Opteron show spotty sales".
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/28/itanium_opteron_q104/

    It seems Xeon still rules that market.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:29:40 +0200, Grumble <a@b.c> wrote:

    >Rob Stow wrote:
    >
    >> Intel has nothing for the desktop market that can compete
    >> with the various AMD64 processors. In the 2 way and 4 way
    >> server market, there are a few cases where Itanic is a good
    >> choice, but Opty beats Xeon in pretty much everything and
    >> also beats Itanic in most things.
    >
    >And yet "Itanium and Opteron show spotty sales".
    >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/28/itanium_opteron_q104/
    >
    >It seems Xeon still rules that market.

    And that is what is known as "history".

    Rgds, George Macdonald

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

    On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:16:40 -0400, Andy <AndyR@trvp.SPAM.com> wrote:

    >On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:43:35 -0400 Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
    >wrote in Message id: <ehdtb0la38hq54qhv7qcfrj23kmcpr7nfl@4ax.com>:
    >
    >>As for the original posters comments about all-Intel for servers, I
    >>think the fact that Intel simply does not have a 4 processor
    >>motherboard in it's entire line-up should tell him something. Intel
    >>is well behind the 8-ball on the server front right now. Their Xeon
    >>chips get pretty badly owned by the Opterons in raw 32-bit
    >>performance, they don't have 64-bit capabilities, they don't have a
    >>chipset capable of running 4P or 8P servers, they don't have any > 2P
    >>motherboards, etc. etc.
    >
    >What about this one with a serverworks chipset?:
    >http://www.intel.com/design/servers/blades/sbx44/

    The trouble there is that Intel has cut Broadcom/Serverworks off at the
    knees - the Xeon/P4 FSB license for higher speeds has been refused... and
    of course Broadcom has jumped ship to AMD's Opteron for the future. I
    can't help thinking Intel is cutting off its nose to spite its face here -
    IOW the rancor from all the Broadcom litigation of the past few years means
    they need to be put in their place... even if it hurts Intel. There is
    also some doubt as to whether Broadcom has the talent to do the job after
    their internal tiffs and related departures.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

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

    On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 09:16:40 -0400, Andy <AndyR@trvp.SPAM.com> wrote:
    >On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:43:35 -0400 Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
    >wrote in Message id: <ehdtb0la38hq54qhv7qcfrj23kmcpr7nfl@4ax.com>:
    >
    >>As for the original posters comments about all-Intel for servers, I
    >>think the fact that Intel simply does not have a 4 processor
    >>motherboard in it's entire line-up should tell him something. Intel
    >>is well behind the 8-ball on the server front right now. Their Xeon
    >>chips get pretty badly owned by the Opterons in raw 32-bit
    >>performance, they don't have 64-bit capabilities, they don't have a
    >>chipset capable of running 4P or 8P servers, they don't have any > 2P
    >>motherboards, etc. etc.
    >
    >What about this one with a serverworks chipset?:
    >http://www.intel.com/design/servers/blades/sbx44/

    Intel's white-box servers are a bit of an odd-ball, and they are sort
    of an exception to the rule above. Intel does indeed sell 4-way
    XeonMP servers using Serverworks chipsets, not only the blade server
    you mention but also a rack-mounted and tower server as well. I
    suppose you could say that they are offering a 4P motherboard with
    these in that if you buy the whole server you get a motherboard with
    it (of course it will only work in the Intel server).

    I'm kind of guessing that these whitebox servers may end up
    disappearing though, they don't seem to have succeeded at all in the
    way Intel had planned. Originally it was supposed to be that Intel
    would do the design work with these servers and then companies like
    Dell and IBM would buy the whole system from Intel, slap their name on
    it and sell them. However a few other companies beat Intel to the
    punch and I'm not sure that any major vendor has ever offered an Intel
    white-box server. Who knows though, they may still succeed. A couple
    companies that have succeeded in this include MSI (IBM's x325 and x335
    servers are both designed and built by them, and perhaps some others)
    and Newisys (they designed Sun's AMD Opteron servers), so perhaps
    there is room for Intel to compete here.

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

    George Macdonald wrote:

    > Grumble wrote:
    >
    >> It seems Xeon still rules [the 2-way and 4-way server] market.
    >
    > And that is what is known as "history".

    What do you mean?

    Q1 2004 is already "history" ?
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 09:52:03 +0200, Grumble <a@b.c> wrote:

    >George Macdonald wrote:
    >
    >> Grumble wrote:
    >>
    >>> It seems Xeon still rules [the 2-way and 4-way server] market.
    >>
    >> And that is what is known as "history".
    >
    >What do you mean?
    >
    >Q1 2004 is already "history" ?

    Of course it is... but the point is that we are in a major transition - a
    watershed in the x-86 CPU form where the 32-bit x86 will be dead within a
    year. x86-64 is a very small portion of the market but it had a huge
    growth, 35% by accounts, in the last Q. When you count that Dell is equal
    #3 in the server market and it doesn't have any x86-64s to sell, that
    number is even more impressive.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

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

    Tony Hill wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 03:26:01 GMT, "tony"
    [...]
    >
    > Seriously though, who the heck reads newsgroups? Basically nobody in
    > the grand scheme of things. Same goes for the gamer sites,
    > overclocker sites, etc. The vast bulk of machines are simply
    > purchased as a Dell Dimension 8200 or an HP Compaq d530, very little
    > thought put into the nitty-gritty details.
    >
    > Despite what some of us may like to think, we're in the definite
    > minority in this newsgroup in that we actually LIKE looking at the
    > nitty-gritty of computer internals.

    My thoughts when I came home with a Gigabyte 875P mboard for me new PC.
    It's really amazing complexity you get for the money. Think that the
    mboard costs approximately about the same as a single 512MB stick and
    compare how they look. Look at the hundreds of tiny resistors that are
    soldered on with no margin of errors. OK so there is a lot of fine
    silicon on the memory sticks, but just a though.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Diskhead wrote:

    > AMD has made chipsets in the past but I think they got out of that
    > biz too.

    They still make chipsets.

    AMD-8000 Series Chipsets
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_4699_4741,00.html

    AMD Updates AMD-8000 Chipset Family
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/chipsets/display/20040614071459.html
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware IBM