A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » AMD x86-64 Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 31st 04, 09:23 PM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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/chi...2087519,00.htm

Will let them use Hypertransport too.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chi...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


  #22  
Old September 1st 04, 03:55 AM
spinlock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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" wrote in message
...
"Tony Hill" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:08:41 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08...nium_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



  #23  
Old September 1st 04, 04:56 AM
The little lost angel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:55:18 -0700, "spinlock"
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
  #24  
Old September 1st 04, 09:33 AM
Grumble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 1st 04, 12:18 PM
Alexis Cousein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
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  
Old September 1st 04, 02:18 PM
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


Clueless top poster.

  #27  
Old September 1st 04, 03:57 PM
Paul Repacholi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"spinlock" 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.
  #28  
Old September 1st 04, 04:02 PM
Paul Repacholi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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.
  #29  
Old September 1st 04, 09:56 PM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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...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


  #30  
Old September 1st 04, 10:23 PM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed wrote:
Heres another,
Linux Server Shipments Grew 55 Percent in the Quarter
Wednesday, August 25 2004 @ 08:33 AM
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/articl...40825083301801


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

Yousuf Khan


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.