Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New princing sheme for Itanium

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 24, 2003 8:09:20 PM

From 4000 buck to 800.From blade to Huge super computer.

Poor old risc base they really start to be obsolete.I guess old sun and the like will have less that 5% of the market very soon.

[-peep-] french

More about : princing sheme itanium

April 24, 2003 8:17:47 PM

It still won't be a huge threat, at least in my eyes, against Opteron high-ends, if you use Deerfields.
Not to mention Xeon MPs are damn expensive, I mean, for a 1.5GHZ, at 1000$, that is expensive just for more cache.

Opteron has a chance only if AMD is able to supply well and be backed with proof that it does well. Itanium 2, while price-slashed, still is far from being adopted if the Opteron is to be looked at smilingly, for 64-bit and scalability.
Intel will be aggressive, and it already shows.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
Related resources
April 24, 2003 8:20:23 PM

I wonder how intel plans to act against the opteron. Since neither Itaniums have good 32bit support.

<b><font color=blue>Algebra was easy for the Romans because "X" was always 10 :lol:  </b></font color=blue>
<font color=red>Jay Kay</font color=red>
April 24, 2003 9:14:12 PM

Intel cant act directly to Opteron, thats the funny part. Intel is too big of a player in the computer world to admit defeat, or even retaliate directly to something from AMD. Intel has too much of an ego to say somebody else is better than them, and they definately dont want to be lead by or follow amd's footsteps
April 25, 2003 9:45:11 PM

Do you know how much cost a DB software from MS or a storage solution from dell or IBM price of ram.Normaly price for ram it about 2X to 10X higher that the price of the CPU all of them.Opteron low price will just help for someone look here no corporation will care just get that.

Xeon price/perf vs Opteron from rackserver.

Rack server ask 45K for there 5.2 tetra bytes storage solution dell ask 72K for does on Xeon.Ram 2100 ECC REG from let say kingston will cost about 16*1500K dell 80K rack server 50K.Few others 10K for service so paying a extra 4K for having a intel proven systemes is a much better solution.1 having to change the server will mean extra worker time at 50 buck/hour multipli by a lot mean that a upgrade by adding new xeon come much cheaper.AMd made a good move by supporting Pea 36 so they can reuse software.


[-peep-] french
April 25, 2003 10:56:47 PM

It would depend. Currently, Opteron has the advantage over the Xeons. However, Intel plans to replace the Xeons (at least, in the high-end) with IA-64 chips. This would mean they would be pushing software developers who originally write software for the Xeons to start developing for IA-64. This may or may not be difficult. Intel has certainly made great efforts to assist programmers from providing an excellent compiler with built-in auto-optimization features to pre-optimized libraries. However, the challenge still remains, will this be enough? There's also the rumor on cnet that Intel plans to provide an x86 emulator which would allow significantly higher x86 performance on its IA-64 processors (compared to the current x86 performance). Of course, it probably still won't be as good as Opteron's x86 performance.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
April 26, 2003 12:34:59 AM

Juin, you're pretty smart--if inarticulate--but I can't believe you would say corporations don't care about cost. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, there may be some out there willing to just throw a ton of cash at their IT guys, but especially now, with the economy the way it is, businesses really dig the idea of saving money. And IT Managers probably like the idea of being able to show a savings on their expense ledger at the end of the year. Makes them look good.

You're wrong, Juin. Most businesses do not pay more unless they have to.


<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 04/25/03 08:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 26, 2003 2:38:29 AM

I was also thinking this, wondering why Juin sees the higher cost as better.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
April 26, 2003 2:26:37 PM

I hate to say it but Juin does have a point, to an extent...

I just closed a contract that cost a local company $150,000 more for a better setup, than the one I had originally offered. And this was because of greater stability.

Three months ago, I closed a contract that cost $18,000 more than was expressed, and the reason was also given as stability.

I have had over 15 individuals who have been prior customers of mine, come to me and ask for better systems, often paying more for the extra stability, rather than cheaper prices. And this is only the last 6 months.

Not to say he is totally right, but he may be one of the first to signal a change in thought (perception?), regarding how people perceive their computing needs.

<font color=blue> Computer fans are really cooling fans for the user. When they run, the user is cool, but whenever they break, the user starts sweating!! </font color=blue>
April 26, 2003 2:45:48 PM

Yes but where it becomes ideal here, is when the companies notice that AMD already has so much support over Intel's servers (probably for more Opteron than Itanium 2, though maybe not enough over Xeon yet), and companies will likely start seeing the rise of credibility. It will be hard for AMD to gain confidence, but over time if they can, not only do companies see them with stability-oriented servers, but cheap high-performing ones which offer flexible 64-bit computing!

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
April 26, 2003 3:40:38 PM

Most thgik this work like desktop but no Cpu cost let say a huge Madison 1.5ghz 6 Mb fastest systemes there will be for all 2003.Cost a wopping 4200 $ US *4 for a 19000 US dollar vs 72 000 for storage for a ratio of 4-1 in desktop it cpu abount 300 vs 300 for a nice HDD.

Price perf why server use Scsi when ide on raid 5 can be much cheaper and only a bit slower.

In real life they use big 73 GB 15 RPM at 3000 $ each use on a expensice 1000 scsi PCI-X from antec or compaq or else most will use does from the OEM to be able to use the oem warrenty.

The optic fiber ligne cost even more so what about the little cpu price.

AMD stability is not have reach does of intel Xeon and them are not as stable as old risc base.

true or not is not the point is the reputation is very important most are mission critical.

On top on all of that there software it cost a lot all have to learn to use it an so on.

[-peep-] french
April 27, 2003 2:53:04 AM

32-bit is the same for Xeon and Opteron, that's a start. 64-bit x86 is a tad different, but nothing a programmer won't learn in a night with some cups of coffee. It should not be hard.

Reputation-wise, like I said, the fact AMD is very backed, due to the entire idea of flexible 32-64bit computing, will boost their reputation and will eventually earn them a name in the server sector, one that is on the "consideration of component brands" whenever IT depts look around. It may even, if Opteron really does hit it, surpass Intel in the server world. Never in desktop, but server, who knows?

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
April 28, 2003 3:16:29 PM

Granted you have a point Eden. However, after years of coffee and doughnut sessions with several IT professionals that I have become friends with over the years (I hate coffee!!!), I keep repetitively hearing:

1. The IT guys love AMD systems, but its harder than hell to convince the General Manager when all he hears is AMD is bad...(Intel has the right marketing scheme there...)

2. The General Manager hears AMD isn't as stable. He believes it. IT Manager rebukes him, and gets reprimanded for it. (This actually happened to a friend of mine. He almost lost his job over it!)

3. The Boss wants a system that will last for years with low maintenance, 24/7/365 operation in any conditons....and Intel's are the only systems that HE's heard of that will handle that....

It does seem that the uneducated users in key locations know what they want....

Even though Opteron may be the better choice, you still have to convince those in higher places to spend the extra money to switch platforms. At this stage of the economy, not as many companies are willing to take the extra risk.

AMD still has to "Prove" that its' processors are on the competitive level. Intel has managed to keep many people blind to the fact that AMD may actually have something. And if they can't blindside them, then I have heard of "Special" Incentives for going Intel...

Oh, would it be good to see some HUGE company go with Opteron, and prove that Intel has to make a better processor to stay competitive. Then we consumers win!

<font color=blue> Computer fans are really cooling fans for the user. When they run, the user is cool, but whenever they break, the user starts sweating!! </font color=blue>
April 28, 2003 4:23:39 PM

1. The IT guys love AMD systems, but its harder than hell to convince the General Manager when all he hears is AMD is bad...(Intel has the right marketing scheme there...)

I got many friend in It to tech support to oracle builder to geek programeur network adminis to web site contracteur to E learning.

After experience i can tell that it there philosophie more that actual CPU that decide there choice.

I remmeber at a my bro job national defense of canada they have choice a pretty bad windows NT to keep the same interface of every computer.User on Win 98 and server on NT.Yes they have some cost of tech support time and others but stuck with a slower OS.So the philosophie of just trow more hardware have win again.



[-peep-] french
April 28, 2003 8:38:14 PM

After reading up on the power consumption charts by Ace, Opteron may even be looked at due to the power savings, knowing companies pay a lot for power when using racks.

Again, all I said was that ideally, it can be possible for AMD to gain confidence, if the trust of its sellers is known. It's not them who sell these chips, as you know, it's up to some reputable company like Dell or IBM to prove they are backing such chip.
With Dell on their hand, god be willing, it could mean a lot of power to AMD. And it may be one of the few ways to actually gain trust.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
April 28, 2003 8:45:53 PM

I've got to agree with juin. (Even if I can barely understand him.) The cost of the CPU isn't all that important. Neither is the mobo, really. The real cost is in the RAM, the hard drives, and the software. (Sometimes especially the software.) So whatever small increase there is to go with Intel, most will go that route just because it's proven to be reliable.

I've seen way too many times where business will go with the higher cost solution purely on a vague premise that it is more reliable. From chosing Oracle over an open-source SQL solution for database software, to chosing a Matrox Parhelia over a GF4Ti4200 for a graphics solution, to chosing Intel over AMD for a CPU. Cost doesn't matter nearly as much as the perception of reliability, and frankly, AMD hasn't been in the 64-bit server business long enough to have proven that they're stable. It doesn't matter how cheap the Opterons go for. AMD will have to fight their image, not their price.

Give AMD a couple of years and maybe that'll change. It'll definately be something that takes time though.

<font color=blue><pre>I'm proud to be an American,
who served my country in the US Air Force,
to protect the rights of my fellow Americans,
to hold protests against others like me.</pre><p></font color=blue>
April 28, 2003 8:48:18 PM

Quote:
AMD hasn't been in the 64-bit server business long enough to have proven that they're stable

Yes but neither has Intel, if we were to discuss strict Intel vs AMD. Heck, Intel already has enough trouble convincing people to go IA64.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
April 29, 2003 12:03:53 AM

Found my a link that it official that dell will use a opteron.They have demo a I2 systemes no opteron come from the official.Ibm say support but no official day or level of support it can be only in 2004 like MS.

And yes power consumation is important to corporation in california.Once again most of the systemes drain more power that the CPU itself.

[-peep-] french
April 29, 2003 12:06:08 AM

they start there 3 year soon and there 3 version.On a possible 7 OS and many OEM

[-peep-] french
April 29, 2003 2:06:59 AM

Who does?

And the Dell thing may be very interesting. Care to link us?

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
April 29, 2003 12:04:30 PM

it on toms news just look.

[-peep-] french
!