Itanium sales hit $14bn (w/ -$13.4bn adjustment)! Uh, Opte..

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

***Big News*** Intel's Itanium chips have hit the $14 billion in revenue
mark!! However there was a small one-time over-optimism charge of $13.4bn.
BUT THIS STUFF IS INCREDIBLE, IT'S EXACTLY AS IDC HAD PREDICTED ALL ALONG!!
That's an amazing 5,665 server units, this past quarter!!!

PS- Oh, and btw, if you're interested (and frankly, I can't see why anyone
would be), Opterons sold 60,000 server units, or something or another,
blah-blah-blah.

Now back to Itanium! HULK SMASH! HULK SMASH! Yeah!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/30/opteron_itanium_sales_q2/

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
47 answers Last reply
More about itanium sales 14bn adjustment opte
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:08:41 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > ***Big News*** Intel's Itanium chips have hit the $14 billion in revenue
    > mark!! However there was a small one-time over-optimism charge of $13.4bn.
    > BUT THIS STUFF IS INCREDIBLE, IT'S EXACTLY AS IDC HAD PREDICTED ALL ALONG!!
    > That's an amazing 5,665 server units, this past quarter!!!

    Hmm, I'll take the $.6B. (don't you just love accountants?)

    > PS- Oh, and btw, if you're interested (and frankly, I can't see why anyone
    > would be), Opterons sold 60,000 server units, or something or another,
    > blah-blah-blah.

    AMDroid!

    > Now back to Itanium! HULK SMASH! HULK SMASH! Yeah!

    What? They're scrapping the Itanic? Come on! "Damned the ice-bergs,
    full speed ahead!" ....more horses!

    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/30/opteron_itanium_sales_q2/

    ;-)

    --
    Keith
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:08:41 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:
    >
    >***Big News*** Intel's Itanium chips have hit the $14 billion in revenue
    >mark!! However there was a small one-time over-optimism charge of $13.4bn.
    >BUT THIS STUFF IS INCREDIBLE, IT'S EXACTLY AS IDC HAD PREDICTED ALL ALONG!!
    >That's an amazing 5,665 server units, this past quarter!!!
    >
    >PS- Oh, and btw, if you're interested (and frankly, I can't see why anyone
    >would be), Opterons sold 60,000 server units, or something or another,
    >blah-blah-blah.
    >
    >Now back to Itanium! HULK SMASH! HULK SMASH! Yeah!
    >
    >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/30/opteron_itanium_sales_q2/

    Hmm.. to be fair to Intel though, their 5,665 server units generated
    nearly twice as much revenue as the 60,000 Opteron units. On a
    per-unit basis, each Itanium server is selling for more than 17 times
    as much as your average Opteron server (~$56,000 vs. ~$3,100).

    A couple other interesting tid-bits from this articles:

    - HP still sells 85% of all Itaniums by volume and 78% by revenue.

    - SGI managed only 12.5% of all Itanium revenue, despite the
    high-profile sales

    - NEC actually had the highest average server cost for Itaniums at
    $158,000 per server. SGI was only at $139,000 and HP much further
    down at $52,000, though well ahead of Dell's average of $21,000

    - The top 6 Itanium vendors listed accounted for 98.7% of all Itanium
    sales by volume and 98.1% by revenue. This is in direct contrast to
    Opteron sales where the top 4 vendors managed only 23.5% of all sales
    by volume and 25.7% by revenue. In other words, Opteron is definitely
    a "commodity" server chip while Itanium is definitely not.


    Interesting numbers, been a while since we've seen them. While
    Itanium sales do continue to grow, they aren't all that impressive.
    It seems like after taking into account seasonal variability that
    Itanium sales have been flat since Q4 of last year.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:47:37 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

    > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:08:41 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    > wrote:
    >>
    >>***Big News*** Intel's Itanium chips have hit the $14 billion in revenue
    >>mark!! However there was a small one-time over-optimism charge of $13.4bn.
    >>BUT THIS STUFF IS INCREDIBLE, IT'S EXACTLY AS IDC HAD PREDICTED ALL ALONG!!
    >>That's an amazing 5,665 server units, this past quarter!!!
    >>
    >>PS- Oh, and btw, if you're interested (and frankly, I can't see why anyone
    >>would be), Opterons sold 60,000 server units, or something or another,
    >>blah-blah-blah.
    >>
    >>Now back to Itanium! HULK SMASH! HULK SMASH! Yeah!
    >>
    >>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/30/opteron_itanium_sales_q2/
    >
    > Hmm.. to be fair to Intel though, their 5,665 server units generated
    > nearly twice as much revenue as the 60,000 Opteron units. On a
    > per-unit basis, each Itanium server is selling for more than 17 times
    > as much as your average Opteron server (~$56,000 vs. ~$3,100).

    How much of that $56K does INtel realize? ...against what investment?

    > A couple other interesting tid-bits from this articles:
    >
    > - HP still sells 85% of all Itaniums by volume and 78% by revenue.

    That doesn't look good for HP! They've put a tad bit of ca$h in there to
    end up on the short end of the revenue stream!


    > - SGI managed only 12.5% of all Itanium revenue, despite the
    > high-profile sales
    >
    > - NEC actually had the highest average server cost for Itaniums at
    > $158,000 per server. SGI was only at $139,000 and HP much further
    > down at $52,000, though well ahead of Dell's average of $21,000
    >
    > - The top 6 Itanium vendors listed accounted for 98.7% of all Itanium
    > sales by volume and 98.1% by revenue. This is in direct contrast to
    > Opteron sales where the top 4 vendors managed only 23.5% of all sales
    > by volume and 25.7% by revenue. In other words, Opteron is definitely
    > a "commodity" server chip while Itanium is definitely not.

    Well, can you say *DUH*! Commodity servers is the whole point of
    AMD64! Compare Itanic against Power 4/+/5, if you're looking in that
    market! Compare price/performance! But to blindly compare Itanic at $56K
    per to Opterons at 6% of that is nutz!

    > Interesting numbers, been a while since we've seen them. While Itanium
    > sales do continue to grow, they aren't all that impressive. It seems
    > like after taking into account seasonal variability that Itanium sales
    > have been flat since Q4 of last year.

    Are you expecting more Itanic sales for the Christmas season? ;-)

    --
    Keith
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:vho7j0p7f1jtq39ub2dlgmniojitbcs0gi@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:08:41 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    > wrote:
    >>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/30/opteron_itanium_sales_q2/
    >
    > Hmm.. to be fair to Intel though, their 5,665 server units generated
    > nearly twice as much revenue as the 60,000 Opteron units. On a
    > per-unit basis, each Itanium server is selling for more than 17 times
    > as much as your average Opteron server (~$56,000 vs. ~$3,100).

    Too bad those are server prices, not per-CPU prices. If the average Opteron
    were 2-way and the average Itanic were 32-way, that wouldn't be notable.
    Too bad for Intel that's not the case.

    > A couple other interesting tid-bits from this articles:
    >
    > - HP still sells 85% of all Itaniums by volume and 78% by revenue.
    >
    > - SGI managed only 12.5% of all Itanium revenue, despite the
    > high-profile sales

    Neither of those is particularly surprising, after HP dropped HPPA and Alpha
    and now SGI is only a shell of its former self (though still employing some
    top-notch folks).

    > - NEC actually had the highest average server cost for Itaniums at
    > $158,000 per server. SGI was only at $139,000 and HP much further
    > down at $52,000, though well ahead of Dell's average of $21,000

    The latter three are not surprising; they fit in with general perception of
    the quality vs. price tradeoffs each vendor is known for. NEC is the
    standout; I hadn't paid any attention to them at all.

    > - The top 6 Itanium vendors listed accounted for 98.7% of all Itanium
    > sales by volume and 98.1% by revenue. This is in direct contrast to
    > Opteron sales where the top 4 vendors managed only 23.5% of all sales
    > by volume and 25.7% by revenue. In other words, Opteron is definitely
    > a "commodity" server chip while Itanium is definitely not.

    That was the entire point of Opteron -- bringing 64-bit computing to the
    commodity market. Oh, and taking market share away from Xeon, and showing
    IT managers what a stupid idea it is to lock themselves into proprietary
    IA64 when they can run open AMD64 systems.

    > Interesting numbers, been a while since we've seen them. While
    > Itanium sales do continue to grow, they aren't all that impressive.
    > It seems like after taking into account seasonal variability that
    > Itanium sales have been flat since Q4 of last year.

    What we need are CPU volume and ASP instead of server numbers.

    S

    --
    Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
    CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
    K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:45:03 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:47:37 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:08:41 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>***Big News*** Intel's Itanium chips have hit the $14 billion in revenue
    >>>mark!! However there was a small one-time over-optimism charge of $13.4bn.
    >>>BUT THIS STUFF IS INCREDIBLE, IT'S EXACTLY AS IDC HAD PREDICTED ALL ALONG!!
    >>>That's an amazing 5,665 server units, this past quarter!!!
    >>>
    >>>PS- Oh, and btw, if you're interested (and frankly, I can't see why anyone
    >>>would be), Opterons sold 60,000 server units, or something or another,
    >>>blah-blah-blah.
    >>>
    >>>Now back to Itanium! HULK SMASH! HULK SMASH! Yeah!
    >>>
    >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/30/opteron_itanium_sales_q2/
    >>
    >> Hmm.. to be fair to Intel though, their 5,665 server units generated
    >> nearly twice as much revenue as the 60,000 Opteron units. On a
    >> per-unit basis, each Itanium server is selling for more than 17 times
    >> as much as your average Opteron server (~$56,000 vs. ~$3,100).
    >
    >How much of that $56K does INtel realize? ...against what investment?

    Well, $56K will buy you a 4-processor server, and at ~$3000/processor,
    that gives Intel a respectable $12,000 plus maybe the odd extra bit
    for chipset sales (at least in Dell's servers, though I think they
    might be the only "major" Itanium vendor using Intel's chipsets).

    Hmm.. add that up and you get something just shy of $70M in this
    quarter, or about $280M/year. I think we previously guessed that
    Itanium development was probably well in excess of $1B/year, so..
    umm.. not very good profit margins.

    >> A couple other interesting tid-bits from this articles:
    >>
    >> - HP still sells 85% of all Itaniums by volume and 78% by revenue.
    >
    >That doesn't look good for HP! They've put a tad bit of ca$h in there to
    >end up on the short end of the revenue stream!

    Yeah, these sorts of numbers tend to suggest that the big Superdome
    servers are just not getting many sales at all, it's mainly the
    smaller stuff like the rx5670 and such.

    >> - SGI managed only 12.5% of all Itanium revenue, despite the
    >> high-profile sales
    >>
    >> - NEC actually had the highest average server cost for Itaniums at
    >> $158,000 per server. SGI was only at $139,000 and HP much further
    >> down at $52,000, though well ahead of Dell's average of $21,000
    >>
    >> - The top 6 Itanium vendors listed accounted for 98.7% of all Itanium
    >> sales by volume and 98.1% by revenue. This is in direct contrast to
    >> Opteron sales where the top 4 vendors managed only 23.5% of all sales
    >> by volume and 25.7% by revenue. In other words, Opteron is definitely
    >> a "commodity" server chip while Itanium is definitely not.
    >
    >Well, can you say *DUH*! Commodity servers is the whole point of
    >AMD64! Compare Itanic against Power 4/+/5, if you're looking in that
    >market! Compare price/performance! But to blindly compare Itanic at $56K
    >per to Opterons at 6% of that is nutz!

    Hehe, perhaps, however Itanium and Opteron were the only numbers
    listed in the article, so as they say, go with what you have! I'm not
    really sure that Intel ever wanted the Itanium to be a commodity chip,
    so I don't think this is really a big issue. However commodity
    servers seem to be where the real growth in the market is, big iron
    servers just aren't seeing growth and mainly just serve as a way to
    get service contracts these days (not saying that this is a bad
    plan!).

    >> Interesting numbers, been a while since we've seen them. While Itanium
    >> sales do continue to grow, they aren't all that impressive. It seems
    >> like after taking into account seasonal variability that Itanium sales
    >> have been flat since Q4 of last year.
    >
    >Are you expecting more Itanic sales for the Christmas season? ;-)

    Yeah, I wouldn't mind a little Altrix under the tree this year! :> If
    nothing else I could sell it on eBay and get myself one hell of a nice
    dual-Opteron setup!

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:31:07 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk"
    <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
    >
    >"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    >news:vho7j0p7f1jtq39ub2dlgmniojitbcs0gi@4ax.com...
    >> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:08:41 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/30/opteron_itanium_sales_q2/
    >>
    >> Hmm.. to be fair to Intel though, their 5,665 server units generated
    >> nearly twice as much revenue as the 60,000 Opteron units. On a
    >> per-unit basis, each Itanium server is selling for more than 17 times
    >> as much as your average Opteron server (~$56,000 vs. ~$3,100).
    >
    >Too bad those are server prices, not per-CPU prices. If the average Opteron
    >were 2-way and the average Itanic were 32-way, that wouldn't be notable.
    >Too bad for Intel that's not the case.
    >
    >> A couple other interesting tid-bits from this articles:
    >>
    >> - HP still sells 85% of all Itaniums by volume and 78% by revenue.
    >>
    >> - SGI managed only 12.5% of all Itanium revenue, despite the
    >> high-profile sales
    >
    >Neither of those is particularly surprising, after HP dropped HPPA and Alpha
    >and now SGI is only a shell of its former self (though still employing some
    >top-notch folks).
    >
    >> - NEC actually had the highest average server cost for Itaniums at
    >> $158,000 per server. SGI was only at $139,000 and HP much further
    >> down at $52,000, though well ahead of Dell's average of $21,000
    >
    >The latter three are not surprising; they fit in with general perception of
    >the quality vs. price tradeoffs each vendor is known for.

    It's probably not such a big issue for Dell here, though I'd imagine
    that HP was hoping for a few more high-end sales. This tends to
    suggest that their big Superdome servers just aren't selling well at
    all. $52,000 is about the going rate for a fairly low-end 4P Itanium
    server or a well loaded 2P server.

    > NEC is the
    >standout; I hadn't paid any attention to them at all.

    I think NEC might be a bit of oddity of statistics rather than
    anything too meaningful. While they sold expensive servers, they only
    sold 38 servers total for $6M in revenue. Those sorts of numbers give
    you a pretty high margin of error.

    >> - The top 6 Itanium vendors listed accounted for 98.7% of all Itanium
    >> sales by volume and 98.1% by revenue. This is in direct contrast to
    >> Opteron sales where the top 4 vendors managed only 23.5% of all sales
    >> by volume and 25.7% by revenue. In other words, Opteron is definitely
    >> a "commodity" server chip while Itanium is definitely not.
    >
    >That was the entire point of Opteron -- bringing 64-bit computing to the
    >commodity market. Oh, and taking market share away from Xeon, and showing
    >IT managers what a stupid idea it is to lock themselves into proprietary
    >IA64 when they can run open AMD64 systems.

    Well, on the latter case they seemed to have done pretty well (though
    AMD64 was definitely not the only reason for IA64's rather limited
    success), but they aren't exactly taking a huge amount of market share
    away from Xeon. There was something like 1.4M Xeon servers sold in Q2
    vs. 60,000 Opteron servers. This gives the Opteron only about 4%
    market share. I guess this is a lot better than 0%, though at it's
    height the AthlonMP managed something like 5 or 6% of the global
    server market, so the Opteron hasn't even reached that stage yet,
    despite signing up some big OEMs.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    > - NEC actually had the highest average server cost for Itaniums at
    > $158,000 per server. SGI was only at $139,000 and HP much further
    > down at $52,000, though well ahead of Dell's average of $21,000

    Yeah, gotta wonder about that. I thought the highest end Itaniums were
    supposed to be those SGI's? What with all of that supercomputer stuff they
    keep selling to NASA, etc. And who the hell are NEC's customers that they
    command such huge avg sales prices?

    > - The top 6 Itanium vendors listed accounted for 98.7% of all Itanium
    > sales by volume and 98.1% by revenue. This is in direct contrast to
    > Opteron sales where the top 4 vendors managed only 23.5% of all sales
    > by volume and 25.7% by revenue. In other words, Opteron is definitely
    > a "commodity" server chip while Itanium is definitely not.

    Yup, in a commodity processor, you gotta expect that the white boxers are at
    an advantage here. The OEMs are going to have compete against them based on
    something other than straight price: bundled software, services, etc.

    IBM is also falling behind the other two American server vendors, HP and
    Sun, on the Opteron front. Why aren't they introducing more sophisticated
    4-way Opterons, like the other two have already?

    Yousuf Khan
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Stephen Sprunk wrote:
    >> Interesting numbers, been a while since we've seen them. While
    >> Itanium sales do continue to grow, they aren't all that impressive.
    >> It seems like after taking into account seasonal variability that
    >> Itanium sales have been flat since Q4 of last year.
    >
    > What we need are CPU volume and ASP instead of server numbers.

    I think that's about as far as we're going to see. I doubt that either AMD
    or Intel break out their individual product-line numbers to any great degree
    during their conference calls.

    Yousuf Khan
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    FALSE prophecies from the archives, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 04:58:25 GMT spoke:

    >Yeah, gotta wonder about that. I thought the highest end Itaniums were
    >supposed to be those SGI's? What with all of that supercomputer stuff they
    >keep selling to NASA, etc. And who the hell are NEC's customers that they
    >command such huge avg sales prices?

    I suspect there are lucrative service contracts included in those prices.


    --

    The truth is out there,

    but it's not interesting enough for most people.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote :

    > Hmm.. to be fair to Intel though, their 5,665 server units
    > generated nearly twice as much revenue as the 60,000 Opteron
    > units.

    No surprise here, they are counting whole server system prices, not
    just the processors, Now check motherboard prices :)

    > On a per-unit basis, each Itanium server is selling for
    > more than 17 times as much as your average Opteron server
    > (~$56,000 vs. ~$3,100).

    And how is the performance difference ? whoops ?

    > This is in direct
    > contrast to Opteron sales where the top 4 vendors managed only
    > 23.5% of all sales by volume and 25.7% by revenue. In other
    > words, Opteron is definitely a "commodity" server chip while
    > Itanium is definitely not.

    ...in the world, where commodity is a key to succes.

    > Interesting numbers, been a while since we've seen them. While
    > Itanium sales do continue to grow, they aren't all that
    > impressive. It seems like after taking into account seasonal
    > variability that Itanium sales have been flat since Q4 of last
    > year.

    How much exactly R&D for Itanium was ? I remember something arround
    $1B.

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote :

    > And who the hell are NEC's customers that they command such huge avg
    > sales prices?

    well, what did you expected from a company making fastest supecomputers
    on Earth ? :)

    Pozdrawiam.
    --
    RusH //
    http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
    Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
    You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    > > Hmm.. to be fair to Intel though, their 5,665 server units
    > > generated nearly twice as much revenue as the 60,000 Opteron
    > > units.
    >
    > No surprise here, they are counting whole server system prices, not
    > just the processors, Now check motherboard prices :)

    Well even with that taken in account the number of processors on
    itanium system is greater than on opteron.

    Intel is pushing it no matter what, and AMD should hope intel won't
    push it harder. If intel would just once release the Itanium for a new
    procecess at same time as their x86 counter parts others would be in
    deep trouble in server market...

    > > On a per-unit basis, each Itanium server is selling for
    > > more than 17 times as much as your average Opteron server
    > > (~$56,000 vs. ~$3,100).
    >
    > And how is the performance difference ? whoops ?

    Well not 17 times as average, but typically the price goes up
    exponentially, from smallest to biggest systems.
    4 Processor topend opteron will costs, over 4times as much as two
    processor top end opteron, without giving 2 as much realworld
    performance while 2 the peak.
    The same goes from 4->8 etc... Itanium sales are in bigger
    configurations, like 16 or 128 processor systems, so price/performance
    isn't such a deal, because they give the performance points opteron
    won't have, even at price points that opteron system vendors can only
    hope for.

    > > Interesting numbers, been a while since we've seen them. While
    > > Itanium sales do continue to grow, they aren't all that
    > > impressive. It seems like after taking into account seasonal
    > > variability that Itanium sales have been flat since Q4 of last
    > > year.
    >
    > How much exactly R&D for Itanium was ? I remember something arround
    > $1B.

    Thats SPEND money, but there is difference between sustainable and
    already spend money. For instance itanium can sustain its current R&D
    based on sales for this year on intel...So who cares what was the R&D
    costs that it had on previous years, intel invested its x86 revenues
    to kill 3 RISC families and take the processor market from them and
    succeeded, and probably withing few years can get the investment back
    in extra revenues on itanium platform. Itanium doesn't have to sell
    millions of peaces to succeed. Even half a million per year is quite
    profitable venture. But if it succeeds greatly and intel could sell
    million or couple million per year its still some extra revenue for
    intel that would of gone for other ventures without itanium.
    If you doubt the cost difference then. Let take their low end of
    itanium line...
    Sells at 513$ has half the cache and 3rd less of cache so only usefull
    for software developement platform, still intel is having nice little
    markup on them also. And the 1.5MB cache itanium really has 6MB of
    cache just most of it disabled. [The disablement is not for fixing
    defects its just that engineer salary compared to volume makes em more
    profitable to simply disable extra cache than design new layout for
    smaller cache, especially with high yield process on large wafers that
    intel has.] So intel is selling 4000$ for high end itanium because
    many customers are willing to pay for that for their multiprocessor
    systems, and is exacly same chip as they can sell for 500$ with nice
    profit margins on them too. Now if constantly people talk that alpha
    team costed 100M$ to keep alive. And itanium has 3 teams on it plus
    compiler guys. So thats well under 400M$ that itanium revenue should
    be this year, and after that rest is profit. [Or repaying the
    investment intel made on itanium.] So ASP with 2000$ and sales of 200k
    per year its something you should keep its alive, BUT there is still
    more itanium sales should grow little bit.
    I personally hope that AMD can survive, and power too on the strenght
    of intel since if they die processor prices go up, we all have
    itaniums...
    BTW: Itanium2 core is much smaller than P4 core but the cache's thats
    is redundancy protected take most of the area. So itanium should be
    about 2x as expensive to make than P4. And intel seems to make great
    profits on P4 so it wouldn't be far fetched that itanium COULD be made
    as a desktop processor with new software x86 emulation layer that
    already is onpar xeon on integer and beats it on floatinpoint.

    Jouni Osmala
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <oj68j0hajvtike9lsf81cc4o17uvvvsmdh@4ax.com>,
    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> writes:
    |>
    |> It's probably not such a big issue for Dell here, though I'd imagine
    |> that HP was hoping for a few more high-end sales. This tends to
    |> suggest that their big Superdome servers just aren't selling well at
    |> all. $52,000 is about the going rate for a fairly low-end 4P Itanium
    |> server or a well loaded 2P server.

    It's better than it was for HP a year ago, or when I saw the last
    such breakdown! But, yes, I agree with your analysis.

    SGI has slipped on the average price, which probably indicates that
    its smaller customers are now prepared to accept Altix systems, as
    well as it has had fewer very large sales.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Stephen Sprunk wrote:

    > That was the entire point of Opteron -- bringing 64-bit computing to the
    > commodity market. Oh, and taking market share away from Xeon, and
    > showing IT managers what a stupid idea it is to lock themselves into
    > proprietary IA64 when they can run open AMD64 systems.

    What do you mean by proprietary versus open?

    Would AMD let VIA or Transmeta implement AMD64 in their CPUs?

    For a fee or gratis?

    I suppose Intel would refuse to let another company produce
    IA-64 compatible chips?

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    AMD Opteron Rules!!

    They shipped 10 times more servers than Itanium and
    made 1/3 as much revenue!!!

    HUH!

    Wait a minute, that's 60000 Opterons and 190 million in revenue
    vs 6000 Itaniums and 600 million in revenue?!?!?!

    WOW, AMD really out-smarted Intel again.

    "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message
    news:6sSYc.37397$JG7.10331@hydra.nntpserver.com...
    > "Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    > news:vho7j0p7f1jtq39ub2dlgmniojitbcs0gi@4ax.com...
    > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:08:41 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    > > wrote:
    > >>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/30/opteron_itanium_sales_q2/
    > >
    > > Hmm.. to be fair to Intel though, their 5,665 server units generated
    > > nearly twice as much revenue as the 60,000 Opteron units. On a
    > > per-unit basis, each Itanium server is selling for more than 17 times
    > > as much as your average Opteron server (~$56,000 vs. ~$3,100).
    >
    > Too bad those are server prices, not per-CPU prices. If the average
    Opteron
    > were 2-way and the average Itanic were 32-way, that wouldn't be notable.
    > Too bad for Intel that's not the case.
    >
    > > A couple other interesting tid-bits from this articles:
    > >
    > > - HP still sells 85% of all Itaniums by volume and 78% by revenue.
    > >
    > > - SGI managed only 12.5% of all Itanium revenue, despite the
    > > high-profile sales
    >
    > Neither of those is particularly surprising, after HP dropped HPPA and
    Alpha
    > and now SGI is only a shell of its former self (though still employing
    some
    > top-notch folks).
    >
    > > - NEC actually had the highest average server cost for Itaniums at
    > > $158,000 per server. SGI was only at $139,000 and HP much further
    > > down at $52,000, though well ahead of Dell's average of $21,000
    >
    > The latter three are not surprising; they fit in with general perception
    of
    > the quality vs. price tradeoffs each vendor is known for. NEC is the
    > standout; I hadn't paid any attention to them at all.
    >
    > > - The top 6 Itanium vendors listed accounted for 98.7% of all Itanium
    > > sales by volume and 98.1% by revenue. This is in direct contrast to
    > > Opteron sales where the top 4 vendors managed only 23.5% of all sales
    > > by volume and 25.7% by revenue. In other words, Opteron is definitely
    > > a "commodity" server chip while Itanium is definitely not.
    >
    > That was the entire point of Opteron -- bringing 64-bit computing to the
    > commodity market. Oh, and taking market share away from Xeon, and showing
    > IT managers what a stupid idea it is to lock themselves into proprietary
    > IA64 when they can run open AMD64 systems.
    >
    > > Interesting numbers, been a while since we've seen them. While
    > > Itanium sales do continue to grow, they aren't all that impressive.
    > > It seems like after taking into account seasonal variability that
    > > Itanium sales have been flat since Q4 of last year.
    >
    > What we need are CPU volume and ASP instead of server numbers.
    >
    > S
    >
    > --
    > Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
    > CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
    > K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Never anonymous Bud wrote:
    > FALSE prophecies from the archives, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    > on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 04:58:25 GMT spoke:
    >
    >> Yeah, gotta wonder about that. I thought the highest end Itaniums
    >> were supposed to be those SGI's? What with all of that supercomputer
    >> stuff they keep selling to NASA, etc. And who the hell are NEC's
    >> customers that they command such huge avg sales prices?
    >
    > I suspect there are lucrative service contracts included in those
    > prices.

    But everybody has lucrative service contracts available for their machines.
    Are you saying that NEC is the only one that includes it into their price?

    Yousuf Khan
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Grumble wrote:
    > What do you mean by proprietary versus open?
    >
    > Would AMD let VIA or Transmeta implement AMD64 in their CPUs?

    As a matter of fact, yes.

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,2087519,00.htm

    Will let them use Hypertransport too.

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,2131648,00.htm

    > For a fee or gratis?

    As a matter of fact, yes. They are just exchanging patent licenses with each
    other.

    > I suppose Intel would refuse to let another company produce
    > IA-64 compatible chips?

    Well, at least for free, they won't allow it.

    Yousuf Khan
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Grumble wrote:
    > Stephen Sprunk wrote:
    >
    >> That was the entire point of Opteron -- bringing 64-bit computing to
    >> the commodity market. Oh, and taking market share away from Xeon, and
    >> showing IT managers what a stupid idea it is to lock themselves into
    >> proprietary IA64 when they can run open AMD64 systems.
    >
    >
    > What do you mean by proprietary versus open?
    >
    > Would AMD let VIA or Transmeta implement AMD64 in their CPUs?
    >
    > For a fee or gratis?
    >
    > I suppose Intel would refuse to let another company produce
    > IA-64 compatible chips?

    Transmeta has indeed licensed AMD64 from AMD, i don't know about Via.
    Intel obviously is making AMD64 compatible chips also.

    I don't think Intel alone has the authority to let someone make a IA-64
    compatible chip, apparently the patents are tied up in a company owned
    by both Intel and HP.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Superfunk wrote:

    > Grumble wrote:
    >
    >> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
    >>
    >>> That was the entire point of Opteron -- bringing 64-bit computing to
    >>> the commodity market. Oh, and taking market share away from Xeon,
    >>> and showing IT managers what a stupid idea it is to lock themselves
    >>> into proprietary IA64 when they can run open AMD64 systems.
    >>
    >> What do you mean by proprietary versus open?
    >>
    >> Would AMD let VIA or Transmeta implement AMD64 in their CPUs?
    >>
    >> For a fee or gratis?
    >>
    >> I suppose Intel would refuse to let another company produce
    >> IA-64 compatible chips?
    >
    > Transmeta has indeed licensed AMD64 from AMD, i don't know about Via.

    Indeed. The press release is dated Saturday May 26, 2001.
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~1181,00.html

    Specifically, Transmeta has licensed AMD's x86-64 technology and
    AMD's HyperTransport interconnect technology for their future x86
    processors and technology initiatives.

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,2087519,00.htm

    Transmeta Chief Technology Officer David Ditzel said the
    chipmaker will keep the 64-bit technology in its back pocket
    for now. "We've licensed the extensions to use them when we
    feel like it," Ditzel said.

    Three years later, has Transmeta done anything with their AMD64 license,
    aside from support for the NX bit?

    > Intel obviously is making AMD64 compatible chips also.

    As far as I understand, Intel has a cross-licensing deal with AMD which
    gave them access to AMD64. For free?

    > I don't think Intel alone has the authority to let someone make a IA-64
    > compatible chip, apparently the patents are tied up in a company owned
    > by both Intel and HP.

    Doh! How could I forget HP?
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    > > Stephen Sprunk wrote:
    > >
    > >> That was the entire point of Opteron -- bringing 64-bit computing to
    > >> the commodity market. Oh, and taking market share away from Xeon, and
    > >> showing IT managers what a stupid idea it is to lock themselves into
    > >> proprietary IA64 when they can run open AMD64 systems.
    > >
    > >
    > > What do you mean by proprietary versus open?
    > >
    > > Would AMD let VIA or Transmeta implement AMD64 in their CPUs?
    > >
    > > For a fee or gratis?
    > >
    > > I suppose Intel would refuse to let another company produce
    > > IA-64 compatible chips?
    >
    > Transmeta has indeed licensed AMD64 from AMD, i don't know about Via.
    > Intel obviously is making AMD64 compatible chips also.
    >
    > I don't think Intel alone has the authority to let someone make a IA-64
    > compatible chip, apparently the patents are tied up in a company owned
    > by both Intel and HP.

    Purpose of that company is to keep IA-64 intellectual property for
    BOTH Intel and HP and exclude others from the fact. So you would need
    both of em to agree for letting anyone else make IA-64 processors. So
    if either of them says you cannot do that.

    Jouni Osmala
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <9538122f.0408310924.3565e51b@posting.google.com>,
    Jouni Osmala <josmala@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
    >> > Stephen Sprunk wrote:
    >> >
    >>
    >> I don't think Intel alone has the authority to let someone make a IA-64
    >> compatible chip, apparently the patents are tied up in a company owned
    >> by both Intel and HP.
    >
    >Purpose of that company is to keep IA-64 intellectual property for
    >BOTH Intel and HP and exclude others from the fact. So you would need
    >both of em to agree for letting anyone else make IA-64 processors. So
    >if either of them says you cannot do that.

    Have you seen the contract that set up that company? That is a
    reasonable guess, but it is equally possible that either party is
    allowed to sublicence under certain conditions.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:55:18 -0700, "spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net>
    wrote:

    >They shipped 10 times more servers than Itanium and
    >made 1/3 as much revenue!!!
    >HUH!
    >
    >Wait a minute, that's 60000 Opterons and 190 million in revenue
    >vs 6000 Itaniums and 600 million in revenue?!?!?!
    >
    >WOW, AMD really out-smarted Intel again.

    I don't know about you, but looking at the way x86 has entrenched
    itself due to sheer installed base, outselling the Itanium 10 to 1
    could be looking really smart another quarter or two down the road
    when developers decide they are going to make more money making
    software for say 300,000 (possibly much more with Intel's P4 hopping
    on the wagon now) potential customers compared to 20,000 for the
    IA-64.

    If the platform doesn't have the software, it will eventually taper
    off.
    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> wrote:

    >AMD Opteron Rules!!
    >
    >They shipped 10 times more servers than Itanium and
    >made 1/3 as much revenue!!!
    >
    >HUH!
    >
    >Wait a minute, that's 60000 Opterons and 190 million in revenue
    >vs 6000 Itaniums and 600 million in revenue?!?!?!
    >
    >WOW, AMD really out-smarted Intel again.

    Clueless top poster.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    spinlock wrote:

    > AMD Opteron Rules!!
    >
    > They shipped 10 times more servers than Itanium and
    > made 1/3 as much revenue!!!
    >
    > HUH!
    >
    > Wait a minute, that's 60000 Opterons and 190 million in revenue
    > vs 6000 Itaniums and 600 million in revenue?!?!?!
    >
    > WOW, AMD really out-smarted Intel again.

    What's your point?
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:

    >
    > Yeah, gotta wonder about that. I thought the highest end Itaniums were
    > supposed to be those SGI's? What with all of that supercomputer stuff they
    > keep selling to NASA, etc. And who the hell are NEC's customers that they
    > command such huge avg sales prices?
    >
    >
    I'm not exactly sure where Japanese Altix servers would be accounted -- SGI
    Japan is owned by NEC, and Altix servers sold there do not count as
    revenue for Silicon Graphics, Inc. anymore...

    Anyway -- the average there is only a matter of how you count installations.

    Is the Dutch National Super's 400+ CPU installation one, two, four or
    eight servers?

    How many kernels are shepherding the installation depends on the whim of the
    administrators...

    --
    Alexis Cousein Senior Systems Engineer
    alexis@sgi.com SGI/Silicon Graphics Brussels
    <opinions expressed here are my own, not those of my employer>
    If I have seen further, it is by standing on reference manuals.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    >> That was the entire point of Opteron -- bringing 64-bit computing to
    >> the commodity market. Oh, and taking market share away from Xeon,
    >> and showing IT managers what a stupid idea it is to lock themselves
    >> into proprietary IA64 when they can run open AMD64 systems.
    >
    > Well, on the latter case they seemed to have done pretty well (though
    > AMD64 was definitely not the only reason for IA64's rather limited
    > success), but they aren't exactly taking a huge amount of market share
    > away from Xeon. There was something like 1.4M Xeon servers sold in Q2
    > vs. 60,000 Opteron servers. This gives the Opteron only about 4%
    > market share. I guess this is a lot better than 0%, though at it's
    > height the AthlonMP managed something like 5 or 6% of the global
    > server market, so the Opteron hasn't even reached that stage yet,
    > despite signing up some big OEMs.

    I found this new article which gives the actual number of server chips sold:

    http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/semis/10181117.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

    http://tinyurl.com/3mfo4

    Quote:

    In the second quarter of 2003, AMD shipped a mere 110,000 server chips
    compared with Intel's 4.6 million shipments, according to Gartner. Since
    then Opteron scored some major design wins, helping it nearly double
    shipments to 205,000 as of the second quarter this year.

    But it still lagged far behind Intel's 5.4 million shipments.




    Now 205,000 chips into the 60,000 servers (previously stated) equates to
    about on average 3.4 processors per server. Considering that the vast
    majority of Opteron servers are usually either 2P or 4P, that makes complete
    sense. And since the number is closer to 4P than to 2P, that would indicate
    that more 4P Opteron servers got sold than 2P ones.

    So it would seem, that Opteron's multiprocessing capacities are being
    exploited to their utmost. Once 8P Opterons come into more common usage, it
    would be interesting to see if corporations are utilizing their capacity
    will be utilized too?

    Wonder how many Xeon servers were sold that same quarter? That way we can do
    the same math and find out what the average number of processors there are
    in a Xeon.

    Yousuf Khan
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:56:08 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >
    >I found this new article which gives the actual number of server chips sold:
    >
    >http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/semis/10181117.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
    >
    >http://tinyurl.com/3mfo4

    Heres another,
    Linux Server Shipments Grew 55 Percent in the Quarter
    Wednesday, August 25 2004 @ 08:33 AM
    http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20040825083301801
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:11:25 -0500, Ed <nosay@home.com> wrote:

    >Linux Server Shipments Grew 55 Percent in the Quarter
    >Wednesday, August 25 2004 @ 08:33 AM
    >http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20040825083301801

    While Itanium still grew at strong rates, the industry saw the emergence
    of the x86-64 CPU space, which had a year-over-year growth rate of 2,183
    percent.

    2,183%, what?
    Ed
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Ed wrote:
    > Heres another,
    > Linux Server Shipments Grew 55 Percent in the Quarter
    > Wednesday, August 25 2004 @ 08:33 AM
    > http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20040825083301801

    But does that tell which were AMD and which were Intel.

    Yousuf Khan
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:23:46 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >Ed wrote:
    >> Heres another,
    >> Linux Server Shipments Grew 55 Percent in the Quarter
    >> Wednesday, August 25 2004 @ 08:33 AM
    >> http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20040825083301801
    >
    >But does that tell which were AMD and which were Intel.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >

    ? just more numbers to look at. ;p
    Ed
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> writes:

    > vs 6000 Itaniums and 600 million in revenue?!?!?!

    That is $100,000 per unit!

    Where did you say that bridge was Nick...

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    josmala@cc.hut.fi (Jouni Osmala) writes:

    >> > Stephen Sprunk wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> That was the entire point of Opteron -- bringing 64-bit computing to
    >> >> the commodity market. Oh, and taking market share away from Xeon, and
    >> >> showing IT managers what a stupid idea it is to lock themselves into
    >> >> proprietary IA64 when they can run open AMD64 systems.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > What do you mean by proprietary versus open?
    >> >
    >> > Would AMD let VIA or Transmeta implement AMD64 in their CPUs?
    >> >
    >> > For a fee or gratis?
    >> >
    >> > I suppose Intel would refuse to let another company produce
    >> > IA-64 compatible chips?
    >>
    >> Transmeta has indeed licensed AMD64 from AMD, i don't know about Via.
    >> Intel obviously is making AMD64 compatible chips also.
    >>
    >> I don't think Intel alone has the authority to let someone make a IA-64
    >> compatible chip, apparently the patents are tied up in a company owned
    >> by both Intel and HP.
    >
    > Purpose of that company is to keep IA-64 intellectual property for
    > BOTH Intel and HP and exclude others from the fact. So you would need
    > both of em to agree for letting anyone else make IA-64 processors. So
    > if either of them says you cannot do that.

    Not quite. The main reason is to sever the itanic from the two way licence
    deals untel has done over the years. With lots of people. This way they can
    just say, "Sorry, not our camel..."

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:57:56 +0800, Paul Repacholi
    <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote:
    >
    >"spinlock" <NullVoid@att.net> writes:
    >
    >> vs 6000 Itaniums and 600 million in revenue?!?!?!
    >
    >That is $100,000 per unit!
    >
    >Where did you say that bridge was Nick...

    They actually only sold $319M in revenue on a bit shy of 6,000 units.
    the $600M figure was for the year to date, so actually their
    per-server average is somewhere a bit over $50,000. MUCH higher than
    the ~$3000 average per Opteron server, but not $100,000.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:56:08 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
    wrote:
    >Tony Hill wrote:
    >>> That was the entire point of Opteron -- bringing 64-bit computing to
    >>> the commodity market. Oh, and taking market share away from Xeon,
    >>> and showing IT managers what a stupid idea it is to lock themselves
    >>> into proprietary IA64 when they can run open AMD64 systems.
    >>
    >> Well, on the latter case they seemed to have done pretty well (though
    >> AMD64 was definitely not the only reason for IA64's rather limited
    >> success), but they aren't exactly taking a huge amount of market share
    >> away from Xeon. There was something like 1.4M Xeon servers sold in Q2
    >> vs. 60,000 Opteron servers. This gives the Opteron only about 4%
    >> market share. I guess this is a lot better than 0%, though at it's
    >> height the AthlonMP managed something like 5 or 6% of the global
    >> server market, so the Opteron hasn't even reached that stage yet,
    >> despite signing up some big OEMs.
    >
    >I found this new article which gives the actual number of server chips sold:
    >
    >http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/semis/10181117.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
    >
    >http://tinyurl.com/3mfo4
    >
    >
    Quote:

    >In the second quarter of 2003, AMD shipped a mere 110,000 server chips
    >compared with Intel's 4.6 million shipments, according to Gartner. Since
    >then Opteron scored some major design wins, helping it nearly double
    >shipments to 205,000 as of the second quarter this year.
    >
    >But it still lagged far behind Intel's 5.4 million shipments.
    >
    >


    Err, uhh, Yousuf, either you're cut 'n paste is a little wonky or they
    changed the article since you read it. Now it reads:

    "In the second quarter of 2003, AMD shipped a mere $110 million in
    server chips compared with Intel's $4.6 billion in shipments,
    according to Gartner."


    Note the dollar values instead of units shipped. Lat though they do
    seem to be switching back to units shipped:

    "Since then, Opteron scored some major design wins, helping it nearly
    double shipments to 205,000 as of the second quarter this year.

    But it still lagged far behind Intel's 5.4 million shipments."


    Hmm... strange.

    >Now 205,000 chips into the 60,000 servers (previously stated) equates to
    >about on average 3.4 processors per server. Considering that the vast
    >majority of Opteron servers are usually either 2P or 4P, that makes complete
    >sense. And since the number is closer to 4P than to 2P, that would indicate
    >that more 4P Opteron servers got sold than 2P ones.

    I'm not sure that this is accurate as it might also include some
    AthlonMP chips where the 60,000 server number might just be for
    Opterons.

    Also the two numbers came from two different companies, so I wouldn't
    be surprised if they are not measuring quite the same thing, it
    certainly would not be the first time that Gartner and IDC came up
    with conflicting reports.

    >So it would seem, that Opteron's multiprocessing capacities are being
    >exploited to their utmost. Once 8P Opterons come into more common usage, it
    >would be interesting to see if corporations are utilizing their capacity
    >will be utilized too?

    I really doubt that the 3.4 processors/server number is accurate, it
    seems just way too high considering that Sun only just recently
    started selling 4P Opterons, IBM never sold them and many small OEMs
    also stick to only 1 and 2P Opteron servers. I would be VERY
    surprised if AMD is really selling more 4P Opteron servers than 2P
    ones, it just doesn't fit the market dynamics at all.

    Of course, part of the confusion might be related to dollar value vs.
    unit shipment confusion mentioned above.

    >Wonder how many Xeon servers were sold that same quarter? That way we can do
    >the same math and find out what the average number of processors there are
    >in a Xeon.

    Roughly 1.4M Xeon servers were sold in Q2 of 2004. I don't know the
    exact number, but it was somewhere around 1.6M total servers and about
    90% of them are x86.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:17:25 -0500, Ed <nosay@home.com> wrote:
    >On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:11:25 -0500, Ed <nosay@home.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Linux Server Shipments Grew 55 Percent in the Quarter
    >>Wednesday, August 25 2004 @ 08:33 AM
    >>http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20040825083301801
    >
    >While Itanium still grew at strong rates, the industry saw the emergence
    >of the x86-64 CPU space, which had a year-over-year growth rate of 2,183
    >percent.
    >
    >2,183%, what?

    There were hardly any x86-64 servers shipped in Q2 of 2003, so the
    fact that 20 times as many servers shipped in Q2 of 2004 isn't all
    that big of a surprise. They're just talking of growth from ~3,000
    servers to ~60,000 servers.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <5hgdj0t585h0n47907jnfb48s5hs8ua7j3@4ax.com>,
    Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    >
    >There were hardly any x86-64 servers shipped in Q2 of 2003, so the
    >fact that 20 times as many servers shipped in Q2 of 2004 isn't all
    >that big of a surprise. They're just talking of growth from ~3,000
    >servers to ~60,000 servers.

    That's the point. IA64 CPUs dribbled onto the market and, in the
    first couple of quarters that they were sold widely, pretty well
    all sales were of workstations and small servers for development
    and testing. The Opteron is less radical, so should ramp faster,
    but the same is occurring.

    The current figures are so confused as to tell us no more than the
    Opteron is at least being a qualified success, and the Itanium has
    neither crashed and burned nor taken off. No more than that.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Nick Maclaren wrote:

    > That's the point. IA64 CPUs dribbled onto the market and, in the
    > first couple of quarters that they were sold widely, pretty well
    > all sales were of workstations and small servers for development
    > and testing. The Opteron is less radical, so should ramp faster,
    > but the same is occurring.

    The thing is : It's not just Opteron, it's Athlon64 too. Athlon64
    is where the volume will be (if anywhere), perhaps we're looking
    in the wrong place ?

    Cheers,
    Rupert
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    >> I found this new article which gives the actual number of server
    >> chips sold:
    >>
    >>
    http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/semis/10181117.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/3mfo4
    >>
    >>
    Quote:

    >> In the second quarter of 2003, AMD shipped a mere 110,000 server
    >> chips compared with Intel's 4.6 million shipments, according to
    >> Gartner. Since then Opteron scored some major design wins, helping
    >> it nearly double shipments to 205,000 as of the second quarter this
    >> year.
    >>
    >> But it still lagged far behind Intel's 5.4 million shipments.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Err, uhh, Yousuf, either you're cut 'n paste is a little wonky or they
    > changed the article since you read it. Now it reads:
    >
    > "In the second quarter of 2003, AMD shipped a mere $110 million in
    > server chips compared with Intel's $4.6 billion in shipments,
    > according to Gartner."

    Hmm, it looks like they re-edited the article since I originally read it. I
    copy'n'pasted straight from the article up there. If they were talking about
    dollars instead of units, then I wouldn't have even found it necessary to
    quote it at all. It's a good thing I decided to quote excerpts from it,
    otherwise people wouldn't have known what I was talking about.

    > Note the dollar values instead of units shipped. Lat though they do
    > seem to be switching back to units shipped:
    >
    > "Since then, Opteron scored some major design wins, helping it nearly
    > double shipments to 205,000 as of the second quarter this year.
    >
    > But it still lagged far behind Intel's 5.4 million shipments."
    >
    >
    > Hmm... strange.

    Looks like there might still be some re-editing of the article left to do.
    :-)

    >> Now 205,000 chips into the 60,000 servers (previously stated)
    >> equates to about on average 3.4 processors per server. Considering
    >> that the vast majority of Opteron servers are usually either 2P or
    >> 4P, that makes complete sense. And since the number is closer to 4P
    >> than to 2P, that would indicate that more 4P Opteron servers got
    >> sold than 2P ones.
    >
    > I'm not sure that this is accurate as it might also include some
    > AthlonMP chips where the 60,000 server number might just be for
    > Opterons.

    I think that was simply 60,000 Opterons, from the Register article that I
    originally posted to start off this thread. I doubt there's much AthlonMP
    sales left.

    In fact, I think people with AthlonMP mobos are probably going to need to
    replace their Athlon MPs with Socket A Semprons from now on.

    >> So it would seem, that Opteron's multiprocessing capacities are being
    >> exploited to their utmost. Once 8P Opterons come into more common
    >> usage, it would be interesting to see if corporations are utilizing
    >> their capacity will be utilized too?
    >
    > I really doubt that the 3.4 processors/server number is accurate, it
    > seems just way too high considering that Sun only just recently
    > started selling 4P Opterons, IBM never sold them and many small OEMs
    > also stick to only 1 and 2P Opteron servers. I would be VERY
    > surprised if AMD is really selling more 4P Opteron servers than 2P
    > ones, it just doesn't fit the market dynamics at all.

    Well, they did say that the white boxers overwhelmingly outnumber the OEMs
    in Opteron sales. Some of those whiteboxers include such brands as Verrari
    Systems (formerly Racksaver), and others, which do have a large server brand
    presense. So it may not have mattered if IBM, Sun or HP had their 4-way
    boxes in place yet.

    > Of course, part of the confusion might be related to dollar value vs.
    > unit shipment confusion mentioned above.

    We'll await the final re-edit. :-)

    >> Wonder how many Xeon servers were sold that same quarter? That way
    >> we can do the same math and find out what the average number of
    >> processors there are in a Xeon.
    >
    > Roughly 1.4M Xeon servers were sold in Q2 of 2004. I don't know the
    > exact number, but it was somewhere around 1.6M total servers and about
    > 90% of them are x86.

    Well at that number, if 5.4 million Xeon chips were sold into 1.4 million
    servers then that would come out to 3.8 chips/server average. So it would
    mean 4-way Xeons outnumber 2-way Xeons, which doesn't make too much sense I
    guess.

    Yousuf Khan
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In comp.arch Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
    > Grumble wrote:
    > > What do you mean by proprietary versus open?
    > >
    > > Would AMD let VIA or Transmeta implement AMD64 in their CPUs?
    >
    > As a matter of fact, yes.
    >
    > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,2087519,00.htm
    >
    > Will let them use Hypertransport too.

    Hypertransport licence is rather cheap i thought? On the order of
    something that even a quite small company (10+ people) could afford?

    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >

    --
    Sander

    +++ Out of cheese error +++
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 22:40:01 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
    <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:

    >In comp.arch Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
    >> Grumble wrote:
    >> > What do you mean by proprietary versus open?
    >> >
    >> > Would AMD let VIA or Transmeta implement AMD64 in their CPUs?
    >>
    >> As a matter of fact, yes.
    >>
    >> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,2087519,00.htm
    >>
    >> Will let them use Hypertransport too.
    >
    >Hypertransport licence is rather cheap i thought? On the order of


    http://www.hypertransport.org/

    FAQ #3. What does it cost to join the consortium?

    The HyperTransport Consortium is based on five membership classes:
    Promoter, Contributor, Advisor, Adopter, Academic. Major differences
    between membership classes are the type of rights and free services the
    member is entitled. Adopter memberships are $5,000 annually, Advisor
    and Contributor membership are $15,000 annually, Promoter memberships
    are $40,000 annually. Additional membership class information can be
    found at the membership benefits information page.

    Ed
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Sander Vesik wrote:
    >>> Would AMD let VIA or Transmeta implement AMD64 in their CPUs?
    >>
    >> As a matter of fact, yes.
    >>
    >> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/0,39020354,2087519,00.htm
    >>
    >> Will let them use Hypertransport too.
    >
    > Hypertransport licence is rather cheap i thought? On the order of
    > something that even a quite small company (10+ people) could afford?

    Yep, it is -- as a matter of fact. :-)

    Yousuf Khan
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    news:tcQYc.48$%ER1.39@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
    > ***Big News*** Intel's Itanium chips have hit the $14 billion in revenue
    > mark!! However there was a small one-time over-optimism charge of $13.4bn.
    > BUT THIS STUFF IS INCREDIBLE, IT'S EXACTLY AS IDC HAD PREDICTED ALL
    ALONG!!
    > That's an amazing 5,665 server units, this past quarter!!!
    >
    > PS- Oh, and btw, if you're interested (and frankly, I can't see why anyone
    > would be), Opterons sold 60,000 server units, or something or another,
    > blah-blah-blah.

    One of the interesting things about numbers is that people can get
    completely lost in them. For example, the numbers published by The
    Register show that Opteron systems sold for an average of ~$3000 each,
    while the Itanium systems sold for a mere ~$53,000 each. IOW, one Itanium
    system is not necessarily equivalent (in either revenue, number of
    processors, or market segment) to one Opteron system.

    FWIW, there are only about 11,000 z/Series systems (or equivalent) in the
    world, yet they run essentially all of the mission critical apps of Fortune
    1000 companies. Number of systems sold is not an indication of
    failure/success, nor of importance in a market. There are much more
    important metrics one might want to focus on to paint a true picture of the
    value of a product.

    Regards,
    Dean

    >
    > Now back to Itanium! HULK SMASH! HULK SMASH! Yeah!
    >
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/30/opteron_itanium_sales_q2/
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >
    > --
    > Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
    > Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
    >
    >
    >
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <1N__c.16808$xy3.1399@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>,
    Dean Kent <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote:
    >
    >One of the interesting things about numbers is that people can get
    >completely lost in them. For example, the numbers published by The
    >Register show that Opteron systems sold for an average of ~$3000 each,
    >while the Itanium systems sold for a mere ~$53,000 each. IOW, one Itanium
    >system is not necessarily equivalent (in either revenue, number of
    >processors, or market segment) to one Opteron system.

    If I recall, the first figure published for the average selling
    price of Itanium systems was c. $15,000 - which was the price of
    a high-end workstation. The initial buyers bought - surprise,
    surprise - workstations for testing and development.

    What will be interesting is to see how the average price of the
    Opteron systems changes. If it goes up significantly, we have
    evidence of more sales in the server and MPP/cluster market; if
    it doesn't, then it is stuck in the workstation market.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:36:41 +0000, Nick Maclaren wrote:

    > In article <1N__c.16808$xy3.1399@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>,
    > Dean Kent <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>One of the interesting things about numbers is that people can get
    >>completely lost in them. For example, the numbers published by The
    >>Register show that Opteron systems sold for an average of ~$3000 each,
    >>while the Itanium systems sold for a mere ~$53,000 each. IOW, one Itanium
    >>system is not necessarily equivalent (in either revenue, number of
    >>processors, or market segment) to one Opteron system.
    >
    > If I recall, the first figure published for the average selling
    > price of Itanium systems was c. $15,000 - which was the price of
    > a high-end workstation. The initial buyers bought - surprise,
    > surprise - workstations for testing and development.

    And do you suppose that this is happening with Opterons too?

    > What will be interesting is to see how the average price of the
    > Opteron systems changes. If it goes up significantly, we have
    > evidence of more sales in the server and MPP/cluster market; if
    > it doesn't, then it is stuck in the workstation market.

    I'm not sure the average system price matters much here. If the UP or SMP
    Opteron (1xx and 2xx) servers/workstations sell tremendously well and
    the >4P servers sell tremendously well (for their segment), the average
    system price will still be far lower than any Itanic (or Z, for that
    matter).

    I'm not sure how one compares chip ASP, on one hand, to system price on
    the other.

    --
    Keith
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.09.07.02.37.41.937282@att.bizzzz...
    > On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:36:41 +0000, Nick Maclaren wrote:
    >
    > > If I recall, the first figure published for the average selling
    > > price of Itanium systems was c. $15,000 - which was the price of
    > > a high-end workstation. The initial buyers bought - surprise,
    > > surprise - workstations for testing and development.
    >
    > And do you suppose that this is happening with Opterons too?

    It is my recollection that this is exactly the market that AMD originally
    had in mind for Opteron. While many were making comparisons to Itanium
    (which AMD skillfully has never denied), all of their marketing material was
    about displacing Xeon systems. The relative pricing of the chips should
    also be an indication of this.

    >
    > > What will be interesting is to see how the average price of the
    > > Opteron systems changes. If it goes up significantly, we have
    > > evidence of more sales in the server and MPP/cluster market; if
    > > it doesn't, then it is stuck in the workstation market.
    >
    > I'm not sure the average system price matters much here. If the UP or SMP
    > Opteron (1xx and 2xx) servers/workstations sell tremendously well and
    > the >4P servers sell tremendously well (for their segment), the average
    > system price will still be far lower than any Itanic (or Z, for that
    > matter).
    >
    > I'm not sure how one compares chip ASP, on one hand, to system price on
    > the other.

    As you know, you can't. Companies such as Stratus will make
    fault-tolerant, fully redundant systems selling for hundreds of thousands of
    dollars using $1K/$2K Xeons. Thus far, these companies have not used
    Opterons. Likely it has nothing at all to do with whether Opterons can or
    cannot be used in such systems, but is due to the fact that such systems
    take a *long time* to design, build and validate... and that their customers
    expect certain attributes, including various name-brand components.

    The real point here is that you cannot simply count systems sold across all
    market segments, then make some general statement about the relative
    success/failure of a component used within a fraction of them. This is not
    an apples/apples comparison, and I suspect that many people know this - even
    those who report/repeat such numbers. Of course, there is always the
    problem of properly identifying each market segment as well as the intended
    target of the component. Once you can do that, you have a better chance of
    determining what 'success' and 'failure' really means.

    On a somewhat related note, it was reported that Bob Evans passed away very
    recently. He led the S/360 architecture team, which apparently cost $5B
    back in the '60s - at at time when IBMs annual revenues were just North of
    $3B. This would be the equivalent of Intel spending multiple tens of
    millions of dollars on a new architecture (no, I am not trying to equate
    S/360 with Itanium in anything except corporate investment terms). That
    one turned out spectacularly successful, and I doubt that Itanium achieve
    even a small fraction of that success - but if they can carve out, and hold
    onto, a niche in the lucrative high-end space, it may not be as unsuccessful
    as many would like it to be (or, it might be - but time will tell).

    Regards,
    Dean
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <pan.2004.09.07.02.37.41.937282@att.bizzzz>,
    keith <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:
    |> >
    |> > If I recall, the first figure published for the average selling
    |> > price of Itanium systems was c. $15,000 - which was the price of
    |> > a high-end workstation. The initial buyers bought - surprise,
    |> > surprise - workstations for testing and development.
    |>
    |> And do you suppose that this is happening with Opterons too?

    I know that it was, for the period for which we have figures.
    Whether it is continuing is another matter.

    |> > What will be interesting is to see how the average price of the
    |> > Opteron systems changes. If it goes up significantly, we have
    |> > evidence of more sales in the server and MPP/cluster market; if
    |> > it doesn't, then it is stuck in the workstation market.
    |>
    |> I'm not sure the average system price matters much here. If the UP or SMP
    |> Opteron (1xx and 2xx) servers/workstations sell tremendously well and
    |> the >4P servers sell tremendously well (for their segment), the average
    |> system price will still be far lower than any Itanic (or Z, for that
    |> matter).

    Sigh. Yes. That is largely because the Itanic has completely lost
    out in the workstation and probably even small server market. As
    other people say, that wasn't the intent. It certainly wasn't the
    intent that it would be an HP and SGI only chip.

    |> I'm not sure how one compares chip ASP, on one hand, to system price on
    |> the other.

    One doesn't. Or, at least, I don't.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <mp9%c.17001$xd1.10147@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>,
    "Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> writes:
    |>
    |> On a somewhat related note, it was reported that Bob Evans passed away very
    |> recently. He led the S/360 architecture team, which apparently cost $5B
    |> back in the '60s - at at time when IBMs annual revenues were just North of
    |> $3B. This would be the equivalent of Intel spending multiple tens of
    |> millions of dollars on a new architecture (no, I am not trying to equate
    |> S/360 with Itanium in anything except corporate investment terms). That
    |> one turned out spectacularly successful, and I doubt that Itanium achieve
    |> even a small fraction of that success - but if they can carve out, and hold
    |> onto, a niche in the lucrative high-end space, it may not be as unsuccessful
    |> as many would like it to be (or, it might be - but time will tell).

    I posted that analogy nearly a year back, and I was rhetorically
    asked by a Itanic flag waver whether I meant that it would dominate
    the whole industry for a decade. I replied, no, that I meant it
    would take the company to the brink of bankruptcy (I believe that
    IBM was within 6 months of filing) and it be a matter of chance
    whether it went over the edge.

    [ Note that, as Brooks says, it wasn't the hardware that had the
    trouble, but the software. The hardware had its problems, but not
    on the same scale. ]

    Well, as it happened, the Intel bean-counters and senior executives
    had enough sense to refuse to bet the farm on the Itanic (which
    was believed NOT to be the case at the time I posted). So Intel
    avoided the the crisis that IBM had with the System/360.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware