1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

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

Discussion in 'Intel' started by Yousuf Khan, Aug 31, 2004.

  1. Yousuf Khan

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Sander Vesik, Sep 3, 2004
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yousuf Khan

    Ed Guest


    http://www.hypertransport.org/

    FAQ #3. What does it cost to join the consortium?

    The HyperTransport Consortium is based on five membership classes:
    Promoter, Contributor, Advisor, Adopter, Academic. Major differences
    between membership classes are the type of rights and free services the
    member is entitled. Adopter memberships are $5,000 annually, Advisor
    and Contributor membership are $15,000 annually, Promoter memberships
    are $40,000 annually. Additional membership class information can be
    found at the membership benefits information page.

    Ed
     
    Ed, Sep 4, 2004
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    Yep, it is -- as a matter of fact. :)

    Yousuf Khan
     
    Yousuf Khan, Sep 4, 2004
    #43
  4. Yousuf Khan

    Dean Kent Guest

    One of the interesting things about numbers is that people can get
    completely lost in them. For example, the numbers published by The
    Register show that Opteron systems sold for an average of ~$3000 each,
    while the Itanium systems sold for a mere ~$53,000 each. IOW, one Itanium
    system is not necessarily equivalent (in either revenue, number of
    processors, or market segment) to one Opteron system.

    FWIW, there are only about 11,000 z/Series systems (or equivalent) in the
    world, yet they run essentially all of the mission critical apps of Fortune
    1000 companies. Number of systems sold is not an indication of
    failure/success, nor of importance in a market. There are much more
    important metrics one might want to focus on to paint a true picture of the
    value of a product.

    Regards,
    Dean
     
    Dean Kent, Sep 6, 2004
    #44
  5. If I recall, the first figure published for the average selling
    price of Itanium systems was c. $15,000 - which was the price of
    a high-end workstation. The initial buyers bought - surprise,
    surprise - workstations for testing and development.

    What will be interesting is to see how the average price of the
    Opteron systems changes. If it goes up significantly, we have
    evidence of more sales in the server and MPP/cluster market; if
    it doesn't, then it is stuck in the workstation market.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
     
    Nick Maclaren, Sep 6, 2004
    #45
  6. Yousuf Khan

    keith Guest

    And do you suppose that this is happening with Opterons too?
    I'm not sure the average system price matters much here. If the UP or SMP
    Opteron (1xx and 2xx) servers/workstations sell tremendously well and
    the >4P servers sell tremendously well (for their segment), the average
    system price will still be far lower than any Itanic (or Z, for that
    matter).

    I'm not sure how one compares chip ASP, on one hand, to system price on
    the other.
     
    keith, Sep 7, 2004
    #46
  7. Yousuf Khan

    Dean Kent Guest

    It is my recollection that this is exactly the market that AMD originally
    had in mind for Opteron. While many were making comparisons to Itanium
    (which AMD skillfully has never denied), all of their marketing material was
    about displacing Xeon systems. The relative pricing of the chips should
    also be an indication of this.
    As you know, you can't. Companies such as Stratus will make
    fault-tolerant, fully redundant systems selling for hundreds of thousands of
    dollars using $1K/$2K Xeons. Thus far, these companies have not used
    Opterons. Likely it has nothing at all to do with whether Opterons can or
    cannot be used in such systems, but is due to the fact that such systems
    take a *long time* to design, build and validate... and that their customers
    expect certain attributes, including various name-brand components.

    The real point here is that you cannot simply count systems sold across all
    market segments, then make some general statement about the relative
    success/failure of a component used within a fraction of them. This is not
    an apples/apples comparison, and I suspect that many people know this - even
    those who report/repeat such numbers. Of course, there is always the
    problem of properly identifying each market segment as well as the intended
    target of the component. Once you can do that, you have a better chance of
    determining what 'success' and 'failure' really means.

    On a somewhat related note, it was reported that Bob Evans passed away very
    recently. He led the S/360 architecture team, which apparently cost $5B
    back in the '60s - at at time when IBMs annual revenues were just North of
    $3B. This would be the equivalent of Intel spending multiple tens of
    millions of dollars on a new architecture (no, I am not trying to equate
    S/360 with Itanium in anything except corporate investment terms). That
    one turned out spectacularly successful, and I doubt that Itanium achieve
    even a small fraction of that success - but if they can carve out, and hold
    onto, a niche in the lucrative high-end space, it may not be as unsuccessful
    as many would like it to be (or, it might be - but time will tell).

    Regards,
    Dean
     
    Dean Kent, Sep 7, 2004
    #47
  8. |> >
    |> > If I recall, the first figure published for the average selling
    |> > price of Itanium systems was c. $15,000 - which was the price of
    |> > a high-end workstation. The initial buyers bought - surprise,
    |> > surprise - workstations for testing and development.
    |>
    |> And do you suppose that this is happening with Opterons too?

    I know that it was, for the period for which we have figures.
    Whether it is continuing is another matter.

    |> > What will be interesting is to see how the average price of the
    |> > Opteron systems changes. If it goes up significantly, we have
    |> > evidence of more sales in the server and MPP/cluster market; if
    |> > it doesn't, then it is stuck in the workstation market.
    |>
    |> I'm not sure the average system price matters much here. If the UP or SMP
    |> Opteron (1xx and 2xx) servers/workstations sell tremendously well and
    |> the >4P servers sell tremendously well (for their segment), the average
    |> system price will still be far lower than any Itanic (or Z, for that
    |> matter).

    Sigh. Yes. That is largely because the Itanic has completely lost
    out in the workstation and probably even small server market. As
    other people say, that wasn't the intent. It certainly wasn't the
    intent that it would be an HP and SGI only chip.

    |> I'm not sure how one compares chip ASP, on one hand, to system price on
    |> the other.

    One doesn't. Or, at least, I don't.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
     
    Nick Maclaren, Sep 7, 2004
    #48
  9. |>
    |> On a somewhat related note, it was reported that Bob Evans passed away very
    |> recently. He led the S/360 architecture team, which apparently cost $5B
    |> back in the '60s - at at time when IBMs annual revenues were just North of
    |> $3B. This would be the equivalent of Intel spending multiple tens of
    |> millions of dollars on a new architecture (no, I am not trying to equate
    |> S/360 with Itanium in anything except corporate investment terms). That
    |> one turned out spectacularly successful, and I doubt that Itanium achieve
    |> even a small fraction of that success - but if they can carve out, and hold
    |> onto, a niche in the lucrative high-end space, it may not be as unsuccessful
    |> as many would like it to be (or, it might be - but time will tell).

    I posted that analogy nearly a year back, and I was rhetorically
    asked by a Itanic flag waver whether I meant that it would dominate
    the whole industry for a decade. I replied, no, that I meant it
    would take the company to the brink of bankruptcy (I believe that
    IBM was within 6 months of filing) and it be a matter of chance
    whether it went over the edge.

    [ Note that, as Brooks says, it wasn't the hardware that had the
    trouble, but the software. The hardware had its problems, but not
    on the same scale. ]

    Well, as it happened, the Intel bean-counters and senior executives
    had enough sense to refuse to bet the farm on the Itanic (which
    was believed NOT to be the case at the time I posted). So Intel
    avoided the the crisis that IBM had with the System/360.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
     
    Nick Maclaren, Sep 7, 2004
    #49
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.