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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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:
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|