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

[Guest]

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 ;-)

 

[keith]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[keith]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[rush]

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.

 

[rush]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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
>

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[superfunk]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?