Intel's marketing wins again...

[Flyboy]

Last week I went to a Linux install fest, I was told that Intel was coming to my college to present details about the P4-M architecture. I went to the presentation excited that I might walk away with some cool information about processor architecture.

It was just another Intel sales pitch. They were passing out hats and pens for people who asked questions. This is the result:

1. IDIOT: What about the thermal properties of the P4-M?
Intel Guy: Uhhh... what about it?
IDIOT: Won't that effect it? You know the performance?
Intel Guy: Well yes- of course. One of the factors affecting all processors performance is the amount of heat it generates. Especially in the mobile market (tosses the guy a hat)

2. IDIOT: What about the...the....powwwwwwer couplins.......that.....ya'.......know....that....ya' got 12 devices.......and all 12 ....ya' know....have to have a different adapter.....wha' bout' that?
Intel guy: (trying not to laugh)
IDIOT: I mean....you know.......like ....well...ya' can't run the device in Europe.......is Intel gonna do somethin' bout' that?
Intel guy: No. That hasn't been done in over what? 50 years? Intel can't do everything and that's one of them (tosses him a hat).

3. IDIOT: Can you tell us about the thermal protection of the P4-M? (STUPID question....EVERYONE knows about the P4 thermal protection)
Intel Guy: "blah blah....and throws the guy a hat"

These people looked like kids begging for candy. I can just see them buying Intel because they got a hat or a pen.

BTW, they also were having a drawing for the laptop that was used to give the presentation. Judging by the incredibly SLLLLOW performance and skippy multimedia, I'm guessing it was no better than a PIII 400Mhz (just a guess). It took so long that the Intel guys started blaming Windows XP. Maybe this was a valid argument...I don't know.

Anyway, as I was leaving I asked one of the volunteers working if they wanted my survey. He said, "Well you can't leave early, or you can't win the laptop" I told him, "I don't care about the hats, pens, or the damn laptop. I just want them to read my remarks about this presentation" He left the auditorium with me and we discussed it. He agreed that it was all marketing BS AGAIN.

I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. GUESS I'M THE IDIOT. Thanks for listening...sheesh.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Flyboy on 05/28/02 11:03 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[texas_techie]

wow, an opportunity to grill Intel about architecture? Man, that could have been interesting if you werent surrounded by morons. My questions:

1. Is is true you have to sign your employment contract in blood and part of your job description is selling your soul daily?

2. Prescott damnit, tell me about Prescott !!
3. Why did the Itanium suck so bad?
4. Rdram - gonna keep using it?

I dunno, there is a lot of stuff I would liked to ask, im sure none of it would have been answered

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

 

[FatBurger]

I keep hearing people talk about how much Itanium sucks, but not a single person has given any facts whatsoever to back up their claims.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[Flyboy]

1. Is is true you have to sign your employment contract in blood and part of your job description is selling your soul daily?

LoL...I bet they do.

I don't know much about processors used for the server market so can't comment. I did look at some benchmarks, and it (Itanium) appears to outperform the UltraSpark III, BUT these are benches provided by Intel....hmmm...do I trust this source?

Here's the link I looked at:
<A HREF="http://www.intel.com/eBusiness/products/itanium/overview/bm012101.htm" target="_new">http://www.intel.com/eBusiness/products/itanium/overview/bm012101.htm</A>

Yeah, I would have loved to hear the details firsthand about Prescott.

You know I guess I was too pissed to think about asking them about RDRAM. I should have confronted them! Maybe NEXT time...

Interesting to think about how they would have responded to the RDRAM. You might be right...they may just avoid a direct answer.

 

[Matisaro]

How about their sales figures which were dismal?

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[FatBurger]

AMD only has 20% marketing share, does that mean their processors are only 20% as good as Intel's?

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[gal128]

Intel won't even answer serious question at there dev conferences so what makes you think they will do so at your college presentation.

 

[eden]

Yes but it is obvious and logical to state that if the product, regardless of its strengh, did not sell well, especially to a PROFESSIONAL market (no home average Joe has yet to use one), then IMO it means it was crappy indeed. Not many appreciated the heat it generated, nor the performance in the end, I can deduct this from the fact this professional market didn't benefit from Itanium. So yeah it was crappy in the end, but I think all are expecting more of McKinley, so let us forget the first and focus on the next offering instead of whining anymore about Itanium 1.

--
Meow

 

[FatBurger]

So by your logic, the Athlon is not a good product.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[Flyboy]

1. I've never been to one of there dev. conferences, so I can't make a comparison.

2. It was supposed to be an "Intel P4-M Architecture" presentation, so I thought we would be discussing the architecture.

But, yes while I was *HOPING* for a cool question & answer session, I guess I didn't really *EXPECT* one.

 

[texas_techie]

Some Itanium benches:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-265396.html?legacy=cnet

"Since 1997, Intel has spent about $11.7 billion on R&D, and about $2 billion of that, or 17%, is estimated to have gone into Itanium" - forbes magazine

"In the third quarter--the first full quarter of Itanium sales--manufacturers sold just $13.7 million worth of servers containing the chip, which comes to less than 500 servers, according to market researcher IDC.
By contrast, Gartner research shows that 2,601 Itanium servers were shipped in the third quarter, an increase over the three shipped in the second quarter. The discrepancy between the IDC and Gartner figures apparently comes from the fact that companies have shipped many Itanium servers for demonstration purposes." -cnet news December 11, 2001

"-- Intel and Microsoft Corp. -- may have purchased as much as 80 percent of the [Itanium] workstations sold in the third quarter, Yokley said....Only "a handful" of customers bought the remaining Itanium servers not scooped up by Intel and Microsoft, said Gartner Dataquest workstation analyst Pia Rieppo" - ITWorld.com Jan 4, 2002


*** From a hardware perspective its not too bad. But 2 billion in research for 13.7 million in return is crap. Add to that only Intel and MS are buying. That sucks. ***

BTW.. your leap in logic that Athlon is crap is hilarious. Please, tell me more obscenely stupid jokes




Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

 

[FatBurger]

Benchmarks, not sales figures. I don't really care how much was sold.

BTW.. your leap in logic that Athlon is crap is hilarious. Please, tell me more obscenely stupid jokes

Not really. Mat and Eden are saying that lower sales mean a product is inferior. So that only applies to Intel?

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[texas_techie]

If you would follow the first link ya ding-bat, you would see some benches...
The sales are relevant because it doesnt matter if a product would revolutionize the world if noone buys it. That and i wanted facts to back up the statement Itanium sales suck (rather than just saying it).
The athlon was AMDs best selling product ever, and what got them the market share they have today. I think they meant "low" sales figures, as in "it never sold to begin with". Which would be true. .

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

 

[eden]

I am sorry but Fatty you are sometimes playing dumb, and I can see that.

I never said it's only because it badly sold that it sucks, I said that by logic, if it didn't sell well to a market that knows how computer chips function, it means not many were impressed to buy it, and thus it shows in the end the deciding factor if it was a success or not. I am sorry but like texas techie said, your reply with the Athlon is just depicting you wanna play dumb with me, which I don't like you doing that. You're much smarter than this, dear FatBurger.

--
Meow

 

[kief]

Itanium is selling much worse then Intel's previous product in that sector, but Athlon is selling much better then AMD's previous product.

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!

 

[Matisaro]

AMD only has 20% marketing share, does that mean their processors are only 20% as good as Intel's?

Considering that they sell every chip they make, I dont think that analogy means much burger.


Check out the commentary on ars-technica.

Itanium 2 "benchmarks" out
Posted 5/29/2002 - 8:24PM, by Caesar
Itanium 2, the second generation of 64-bit processors to emerge from Intel labs, is headed our way. OCWorkBench was the first (as far as I'm aware) to post a PowerPoint Presentation that reveals some simulated or estimated "marketing benchmarks" on Itanium 2's performance. Marketing is the operative word here because, if you look closely, you'll see that each set of "stats" represents a theoretical comparison of different machines with different configurations, likely chosen to reflect specific performance gains and features that are expected at production time. All the same, the presentation does seem to indicate Intel is expecting to release Itanium 2 to production in only a couple of months, so it won't be too long before we'll know if the OEMs like HP are wise for hedging their bets. Itanic 2 or no? This EETimes brief indicates that Intel is certainly broadcasting 2x the performance of similar system based on the original Itanium, but then that's not much of a claim, since by most accounts Itanium proved to be disappointing.

Important bit*

This EETimes brief indicates that Intel is certainly broadcasting 2x the performance of similar system based on the original Itanium, but then that's not much of a claim, since by most accounts Itanium proved to be disappointing

Now, I dont have the time, nor the inclincation to go through and provide links to reviews which are almost a year old as to why the itanium was a dissapointment, but it is generally agreed that it is.




The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[Matisaro]

Not really. Mat and Eden are saying that lower sales mean a product is inferior. So that only applies to Intel?

No I implied that the lower sales were BECAUSE the product was inferior, not the other way around.
Huge difference.


The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[Matisaro]

BTW, fatburger is playing devils advocate, dont everyone go off on him or anything.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[FUGGER]

They are clueless to the Itaniums function and who "needs" the 64bit computing now. It is best at crunching large numbers not a gaming machine for joe home user.

Those sales figures are wrong, we have sold thousands of Itaniums. They fail to grasp the short time span those sales figures were gathered. I believe the estimate was 13.x million the first quarter = 1 or 2 months of existance as the Itanium was not out 6 months. June 2002 Itanium will be a year old and here comes Itanium 2.

The lemmings find it an easy target as they think no one here can intelligently defend it.

Mapping of the complete human genome will be done in august, years ahead of schedule thanks to Itanium. This mapping has already lead to cures for birth defects and other inherent diseases. What do they care if downs syndrome can be cured before conception as they really care about is if it can do 200FPS in quake 3.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.

 

[gal128]

What I find funny is that people argue over the quality of a product that they will never actually get to use. For that reason I reserve judgement on Itanium I and II. The fact that the average person can't afford it and wouldn't utilize it's full ability anyway is something we should remember as well, so referencing Joe Home Luser is a waste as well.

As far as product sold, why doesn't anyone bring up figures that are up to date. I'm not cause I don't care that much.

And while we are arguing what is good and what isn't we should also ask what the product was designed for. Sun, Apple, AMD, Intel and IBM all make quality processors. Saying that one processor is better then another in general isn't saying much when they were meant to give optimal performance in different areas. I haven't seen a single processors that does everything well. It's the marketing depts that have you believing that these things are do it all type equipment. Let it go, they will all co-exist. And so hopefully will all us humans. vExcept for Luigi(silly simple stupid plumber boy) he needs to feel the wrath of the orbiting ion cannon.

Klipsch Promedia 5.1s are a great way to break any lease.

 

[ChipDeath]

Mapping of the complete human genome will be done in august, years ahead of schedule thanks to Itanium. This mapping has already lead to cures for birth defects and other inherent diseases. What do they care if downs syndrome can be cured before conception as they really care about is if it can do 200FPS in quake 3.

I certainly agree that this is a very good thing for mankind in general, but I suspect that this is more due to other factors, such as well written software and hard workers, than Intel. After all, there are more powerful processors/computers out there, just not mainstream ones. Just because you fanatically love all things Intel, don't assume they are solely responsible.

<font color=blue><i>Your</i> PC may be quieter, but <i>my</i> PC makes a better hairdryer!</font color=blue>

 

[FatBurger]

From your link:

"Itanium itself is a solid product, but it doesn't blow the doors off the competition, as Intel had initially hoped (and hyped)," Kumar wrote in a report Wednesday. "But it is best viewed as the first step in a long line of processors that will eventually dominate the high end of computing, pushing aside current competitors such as IBM's Power family and Sun's Sparc processors."

SpecInt: Measures relative speed in computing processes such as compressing a file, word processing or compiling software. Higher numbers mean greater performance.

Sun UltraSparc III, 750MHz: 395
Sun UltraSparc III, 900MHz: 467
Intel Itanium, 800MHz: 404


SpecFP: Measures mathematical processes such as drawing 3D images or simulating nuclear physics.

Sun UltraSparc III, 750MHz: 421
Sun UltraSparc III, 900 MHz: 482
Intel Itanium, 800MHz: 711

Stop me if I'm wrong, but I believe simulating nuclear physics is closer to the use Intel intended than word processing.


The big downsides to Itanium are of course heat (which is a small concern in it's market) and poor 32-bit performance. The 32-bit aspect is supposed to be handled in a completely different manner with Itanium 2 than the original, but we'll have to wait and see how that pans out.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[eden]

I don't think 32-bit was a big worry for them, just that transitionally-wise if someone wanted to, I think yeah better wait for McKinley or use a Hammer. But I meant that if even with the knowledge of its performance, how can you explain not many buying it, EVEN IF THEY KNOW ITS PERFORMANCE?

--
Meow

 

[slvr_phoenix]

But I meant that if even with the knowledge of its performance, how can you explain not many buying it, EVEN IF THEY KNOW ITS PERFORMANCE?

Umm, because some plucky new-comer to the market introduced a nice product but everyone is so bent on using what they have been using for years that they refuse to aknowledge its potential.

It isn't like AMD <i>ever</i> had that problem (or still does...) when it tried to break into the desktop PC market.

As we all know, just because something performs well <i>doesn't</i> mean that it will be accepted quickly. When big brand names that people trust are at stake, most stick to the names that they trust, logical or not.


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.

 

[FatBurger]

Exactly. Remember these are million dollar machines, and the people making million-dollar decisions are NOT the same people that actually run the machine. We're talking about IT executives who have no clue what's going on in the marketplace, all they care about is the next round of golf with the CEO, or the expensive lunch some vendor is buying them while they eye the waitress instead of listening.

Not all executives are like that (mine isn't, thank God), but when you're talking about large non-technical companies, it's not common that you have executives who actually read up on what they're doing. They just look at a brand new, unproven product, and one that all their executive buddies they meet at Comdex use.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>